Monday Volume 684 16 November 2020 No. 135

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

Monday 16 November 2020 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2020 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT

MEMBERS OF THE CABINET (FORMED BY THE RT HON. , MP, DECEMBER 2019)

PRIME MINISTER,FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY,MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND MINISTER FOR THE UNION— The Rt Hon. Boris Johnson, MP CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER—The Rt Hon. , MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN,COMMONWEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT AFFAIRS AND — The Rt Hon. , MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT—The Rt Hon. , MP CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER AND MINISTER FOR THE —The Rt Hon. , MP AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE—The Rt Hon. , QC, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE—The Rt Hon. , MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE—The Rt Hon. , MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS,ENERGY AND INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY—The Rt Hon. , MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE, AND MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND EQUALITIES—The Rt Hon. Elizabeth Truss, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS—The Rt Hon. Dr Thérèse Coffey, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION—The Rt Hon. CBE, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT,FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS—The Rt Hon. , MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOUSING,COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT—The Rt Hon. , MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT—The Rt Hon. , MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR —The Rt Hon. CBE, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND—The Rt Hon. , MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR —The Rt Hon. , MP LEADER OF THE AND —The Rt Hon. Baroness Evans of Bowes Park SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DIGITAL,CULTURE,MEDIA AND SPORT—The Rt Hon. CBE, MP MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO—The Rt Hon. , MP DEPARTMENTS OF STATE AND MINISTERS Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Alok Sharma, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— The Rt Hon. , MP (Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth) Lord Grimstone of Boscobel, Kt (Minister for Investment) § PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— , MP , MP , MP Lord Callanan Cabinet Office— PRIME MINISTER,FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY,MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND MINISTER FOR THE UNION— The Rt Hon. Boris Johnson, MP CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER AND MINISTER FOR THE CABINET OFFICE—The Rt Hon. Michael Gove, MP MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO—The Rt Hon. Amanda Milling, MP —The Rt Hon. , MP MINISTERS OF STATE— , MP (Minister for the Constitution and Devolution) Lord Agnew of Oulton (Minister for Efficiency and Transformation) § Lord True CBE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES— , MP Johnny Mercer, MP (Minister for Defence People and Veterans) § Defence— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Ben Wallace, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— , MP (Minister for Defence Procurement) Baroness Goldie DL PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— , MP (Minister for the Armed Forces) Johnny Mercer, MP (Minister for Defence People and Veterans) § ii HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT—cont.

Digital, Culture, Media and Sport— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Oliver Dowden CBE, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— , MP (Minister for Digital and Culture) The Rt Hon. , MP (Minister for Media and Data) PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— , MP , MP § Baroness Barran MBE Education— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Gavin Williamson CBE, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— , MP (Minister for Universities) The Rt Hon. , MP (Minister for School Standards) PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— , MP , MP Baroness Berridge of the Vale of Catmose § Environment, Food and Rural Affairs— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. George Eustice, MP —The Rt Hon. Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park § PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— , MP Lord Gardiner of Kimble , MP Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office— SECRETARY OF STATE AND FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Dominic Raab, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— The Rt Hon. , MP (Minister for the Middle East and North Africa) The Rt Hon. Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Minister for the Pacific and the Environment) § , MP (Minister for Asia) Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Minister for South Asia and the Commonwealth) PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— , MP , MP Baroness Sugg CBE Health and Social Care— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Matt Hancock, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— , MP (Minister for Health) , MP (Minister for Care) , MP (Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— , MP Lord Bethell of Romford — SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Priti Patel, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— The Rt Hon. , MP () , MP (Minister for Crime and Policing) § Baroness Williams of Trafford Lord Greenhalgh (Minister for Building Safety and Communities) § PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— , MP Kevin Foster, MP , MP § Housing, Communities and Local Government— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Robert Jenrick, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— , MP (Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government) The Rt Hon. , MP (Minister for Housing) Lord Greenhalgh (Minister for Building Safety and Communities) § PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE—, MP HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT—cont. iii

International Trade— SECRETARY OF STATE AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE, AND MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND EQUALITIES— The Rt Hon. Elizabeth Truss, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— The Rt Hon. , MP (Minister for Trade Policy) Lord Grimstone of Boscobel, Kt (Minister for Innovation) § PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— Graham Stuart, MP , MP , MP (Minister for Equalities) § Baroness Berridge of the Vale of Catmose (Minister for Women) § Justice— LORD CHANCELLOR AND SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Robert Buckland, QC, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— , QC, MP Kit Malthouse, MP (Minister for Crime and Policing) § PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— , MP § Chris Philp, MP § Law Officers— ATTORNEY GENERAL—The Rt Hon. , QC, MP SOLICITOR GENERAL—The Rt Hon. Michael Ellis, QC, MP ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND—Keith Stewart, QC Leader of the House of Commons— LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS—The Rt Hon. Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP Leader of the House of Lords— LORD PRIVY SEAL AND LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS—The Rt. Hon. Baroness Evans of Bowes Park DEPUTY LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS—The Rt Hon. Earl Howe CBE — SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Brandon Lewis CBE, MP MINISTER OF STATE—, MP Scotland Office— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Alister Jack, MP PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— Iain Stewart, MP David Duguid, MP § Transport— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Grant Shapps, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— Chris Heaton-Harris, MP , MP PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— , MP Rachel Maclean, MP Baroness Vere of Norbiton Treasury— PRIME MINISTER,FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY,MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND MINISTER FOR THE UNION— The Rt Hon. Boris Johnson, MP CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER—The Rt Hon. Rishi Sunak, MP CHIEF SECRETARY—The Rt Hon. , MP FINANCIAL SECRETARY—The Rt Hon. , MP MINISTER OF STATE—Lord Agnew of Oulton DL (Minister for Efficiency and Transformation) § ECONOMIC SECRETARY—, MP EXCHEQUER SECRETARY—Kemi Badenoch, MP § PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY—The Rt Hon. Mark Spencer, MP LORDS COMMISSIONERS— James Morris, MP , MP David Duguid, MP § , MP , MP , MP iv HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT—cont.

ASSISTANT WHIPS— , MP David T. C. Davies, MP § Alex Chalk, MP § , MP , MP Nigel Huddleston, MP § Eddie Hughes, MP UK Export Finance— SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE—The Rt Hon. Elizabeth Truss, MP PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE—Graham Stuart, MP Wales Office— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Simon Hart, MP PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE—David T. C. Davies, MP § Work and Pensions— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Dr Thérèse Coffey, MP MINISTER OF STATE—, MP (Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work) PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— , MP , MP , MP Baroness Stedman-Scott OBE, DL Her Majesty’s Household— —The Rt Hon. Earl Peel GCVO, DL —The Earl of Dalhousie —Lord de Mauley TREASURER—, MP COMPTROLLER—, MP VICE-CHAMBERLAIN—Marcus Jones, MP CAPTAIN OF THE HONOURABLE CORPS OF GENTLEMEN-AT-ARMS—The Rt Hon. Lord Ashton of Hyde CAPTAIN OF THE QUEEN’S BODYGUARD OF THE YEOMEN OF THE GUARD—Earl of Courtown BARONESSES IN WAITING— Baroness Penn Baroness Scott of Bybrook OBE Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist LORDS IN WAITING— Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Viscount Younger of Leckie

§ Members of the Government listed under more than one Department

SECOND CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSIONER,REPRESENTING THE —, MP REPRESENTING THE SPEAKER’S COMMITTEE ON THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION—Christian Matheson, MP REPRESENTING THE SPEAKER’S COMMITTEE FOR PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS AUTHORITY— Sir Charles Walker, MP REPRESENTING THE HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION—Pete Wishart, MP CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION—The Rt Hon. Sir , MP HOUSE OF COMMONS

THE SPEAKER—The Rt Hon. Sir , MP

CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS—The Rt Hon. Dame , MP FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS—The Rt Hon. Dame , MP SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS—Mr Nigel Evans, MP

PANEL OF CHAIRS— Rushanara Ali, Sir , Hannah Bardell, Mr Clive Betts, Mr , Sir Graham Brady, Sir , Judith Cummins, Geraint Davies, , , Ms , Clive Efford, Julie Elliott, , The Rt Hon. Sir , Ms Nusrat Ghani, The Rt Hon. Dame Cheryl Gillan, James Gray, Sir , Mr , Stewart Hosie, The Rt Hon. Sir , Dr Rupa Huq, The Rt Hon. Sir Edward Leigh, Steve McCabe, Siobhain McDonagh, The Rt Hon. Esther McVey, The Rt Hon. , The Rt Hon. , Mrs , The Rt Hon. , , Mark Pritchard, Christina Rees, Mr , , Mr Virendra Sharma, Sir , , , Sir Charles Walker SECRETARY—Chris Stanton

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION— The Rt Hon. The Speaker (Chairman), Ian Ailles (Director General of the House of Commons), Dr John Benger (Clerk of the House and Head of the House of Commons Service), Jane McCall (External Member), Dr Rima Makarem (External Member), The Rt Hon. Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP (Leader of the House), The Rt Hon. , MP, Sir Charles Walker, MP, The Rt Hon. Dame Rosie Winterton, MP, Pete Wishart, MP SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION—Marianne Cwynarski ASSISTANT SECRETARY—Robert Cope

ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATE AUDIT AND RISK ASSURANCE COMMITTEE AND MEMBERS ESTIMATE AUDIT COMMITTEE— Dr Rima Makarem (Chair), , MP, Mr Clive Betts, MP, Frances Done, Jane McCall, Sir Charles Walker, MP SECRETARY TO THE COMMITTEE—Hannah Bryce

COMMONS EXECUTIVE BOARD— Mostaque Ahmed (Finance Director and Managing Director, Finance, Portfolio and Performance), Ian Ailles (Director General of the House of Commons), Dr John Benger (Clerk of the House and Head of the House of Commons Service), Isabel Coman (Managing Director, In-House Services & Estates), Sarah Davies (Clerk Assistant and Managing Director, Chamber and Committees), Mandy Eddolls (Managing Director, HR and Diversity), Eric Hepburn (Director of Security for Parliament), Tracey Jessup (UK Parliament Chief Digital and Information Officer), Dr Edge Watchorn (Managing Director, Participation), Penny Young (Librarian and Managing Director, Research and Information) SECRETARY TO THE BOARD—Rhiannon Hollis

SPEAKER’S SECRETARY—Helen Wood SPEAKER’S COUNSEL—Saira Salimi SPEAKER’S CHAPLAIN—The Rev. Canon Patricia Hillas PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS—Kathryn Stone

Monday 16 November 2020

1 16 NOVEMBER 2020 2 THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES OFFICIAL REPORT

IN THE FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT OF THE OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND [WHICH OPENED 17 DECEMBER 2019]

SIXTY-NINTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II

SIXTH SERIES VOLUME 684 SIXTEENTH VOLUME OF SESSION 2019-2021

Christine Jardine: As it stands, the Domestic Abuse House of Commons Bill places a duty on local authorities, as the Minister said, to support survivors who are in refuges, and of Monday 16 November 2020 course they must, but with the rise we are seeing in domestic abuse, the majority of survivors do not move The House met at half-past Two o’clock into refuges, and they also need support. Will the Minister therefore agree that local authorities must also have that PRAYERS duty and the funding to provide the community-based services and support that survivors need? [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, Kelly Tolhurst: I thank the hon. Lady for her point. 4 June). She is right that any victim of domestic abuse needs that [NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.] support in place, and the new duty in part 4 of the Bill will ensure that support is available to victims in a wide range of accommodation services and not just refuges. We recognise that more needs to be done to ensure adequate Oral Answers to Questions provision in the community is available, and that is why the Domestic Abuse Commissioner is undertaking a review of that provision. That review will enable us as HOUSING, COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL the Government to better understand the needs and GOVERNMENT develop outcomes for how best to address them. The Secretary of State was asked— Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab): Only this morning, it was reported that women suffering from domestic Domestic Abuse abuse were being turned away by up to five separate refuges, even where spaces were available, due to them Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD): What not speaking English and a lack of specialist services. discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on The provisions in the Domestic Abuse Bill and the funding for local authorities to ensure that they can statutory duty on councils is one thing, but does the Minister provide the support to people experiencing domestic understand that, if the funding for refuges from local abuse that would be required under the provisions of authorities is as severely under-resourced as charities the Domestic Abuse Bill. [908776] such as Refuge and Women’s Aid estimate, the legislative The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, change will be meaningless for those women who are Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst): desperately fleeing abuse only to be turned away? My Department has engaged extensively across government in taking forward the new duty on local authorities to Kelly Tolhurst: The hon. Lady raises an important provide support in safe accommodation, as set out in point. A home should be a place of safety, and for those the Domestic Abuse Bill. As a new burden, it will be in abusive relationships, the situation she outlines is not appropriately funded—the amount is a matter for the acceptable. Domestic abuse is a heinous crime, and we spending review—to ensure that local authorities are are committed as a Government to ensuring that survivors ready to provide the right support to victims. Last get the support they need. I am monitoring the situation month, I announced a £6 million fund to support as we move through covid in regard to the demand for councils to prepare for that duty. places, and that is exactly why the Government announced 3 Oral Answers 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Oral Answers 4 the £10 million emergency support fund, which has 130,000 children in temporary accommodation, but gone to more than 160 charities. That has helped reopen there is little action from the Government to tackle 350 beds and created more than 1,500, but there is hidden homelessness. With rough sleeping levels going absolutely no complacency. I will continue to monitor back to where they were and no repeat of Everyone In, this, as will Ministers in the Home Office as well. We there is real concern. What does the Secretary of State will take action where required. consider to be different about rough sleeping in a winter lockdown, apart from it being colder and more dangerous Rough Sleepers: Accommodation than in spring?

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): What progress Robert Jenrick: In a letter to me, the hon. Lady his Department has made on delivering new described the Government’s Everyone In programme as accommodation for rough sleepers. [908777] “an incredible achievement”that helped to save “hundreds of lives”. She is absolutely right, and I would like to The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and thank all the councils and charities that were part of Local Government (Robert Jenrick): As part of our plan that. That plan has not stopped; that work continues. to end rough sleeping, earlier this year I announced a We are backing it with £700 million of Government £433 million funding package, which will provide 6,000 investment. We began planning for the winter in the homes for rough sleepers over the course of this Parliament, summer. We have put more money in for housing. We the largest ever investment in accommodation of this have also asked every local authority in the country to kind. We are taking immediate action with the funding. draw up its own individual plan and backed that with Last month, we allocated over £150 million to local £100 million of additional support. The Protect programme partners to deliver 3,300 new homes to rough sleepers now once again asks local authorities to give everyone across , and these will be available by the end of who is sleeping rough on the streets during this new March next year. period of national measures a safe place to stay. We will be working cross-party with councils across the length [V]: I thank my right hon. Friend for and breadth of England to make that a success. his answer. The brilliant work of the Government, charities and local government in the Everyone In initiative Places of Worship: Covid-19 meant that 30,000 people were provided with safe emergency accommodation, which obviously reduced pressure on the NHS and undoubtedly saved lives. I welcome the Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con): What assessment Protect programme and the announcements he has made the Government have made of the transmission rate of on new homes, but the reality is that the announcement covid-19 in places of worship where social distancing of 3,000 new homes will not help and assist the 30,000 restrictions were in place. [908778] people in total who need accommodation right now. What efforts will he make to ensure that safe and secure The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, accommodation is provided to all those threatened with Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst): rough sleeping? Also, will he commit to rolling out the We are grateful to our faith communities for their Housing First programme, which is so necessary to help efforts in ensuring that their places of worship are as those who have been sleeping rough to rebuild their covid-secure as possible. However,the view of the scientific lives? community, including the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, is that there is a greater risk of the virus Robert Jenrick: I can assure my hon. Friend that that spreading indoors and where people gather. Regrettably, is absolutely the priority for my Department. I am this means that places of worship are currently closed proud that, as of September,we have successfully supported for communal prayer but remain open for individual over 29,000 vulnerable people through our efforts, with prayer. over 10,000 helped into emergency accommodation and nearly 19,000 already provided with settled accommodation or move-on support. Thankfully, very few of those Andrew Rosindell [V]: I thank the Minister for her individuals have so far returned to the streets. He mentions reply. Given the serious implications of criminalising Housing First. He will know that we have funded a worship and the hardship it has caused churches and number of pilots, which he helped to inspire in previous religious communities, will the Government commit to years. Wehave learnt from that work, and that is very much publishing their evidence base and to consulting fully the impetus behind the rough sleeping accommodation and widely with faith groups before any future decisions programme, because every individual who goes into one on applying restrictions to worship are made? of these 6,000 new homes will be given wraparound care for mental health, addiction, substance abuse and Kelly Tolhurst: I do not underestimate the concern all the other things that they need to begin to rebuild that this has caused for our religious communities, but their lives. the evidence from the scientific community, including SAGE, shows that the virus spreads quicker indoors (Bristol West) (Lab) [V]: The and where people gather and interact. We are incredibly Government’s former rough sleeping tsar has warned grateful to those who have taken part in the places of that we are heading for a “perfect storm of awfulness” worship taskforce for their support and advice.Wecontinue this winter when it comes to homelessness. With many to call on their expertise and that of all major faith owner-occupiers and renters struggling with bills, rent groups ahead of the regulations ending on 2 December, or mortgages, there is a likelihood that more people and we will continue to have those conversations over will get to a place of desperation. There are already the next two weeks. 5 Oral Answers 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Oral Answers 6

Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]: The Government Buckinghamshire has put together. Therefore, will my created a places of worship taskforce in May, but the hon. Friend agree to meet the Buckinghamshire MPs, taskforce has been ignored and has repeatedly not been Buckinghamshire Council and all of our partners to consulted on these very consequential decisions during look at the detail of this proposal, which could put the pandemic. Does the Minister agree that our people £10 billion extra into the UK economy, both to get the of faith do not deserve to be an afterthought for the right deal for Buckinghamshire and to help shape the Government but must instead be respected, and will White Paper? she commit to the Government meeting weekly with the taskforce to avoid this problem being repeated? Luke Hall: I thank my hon. Friend. It was a pleasure to meet him recently to discuss this and other matters in Kelly Tolhurst: I have to disagree strongly with the Buckinghamshire. I would be delighted to have that hon. Lady’s assertion that the taskforce has not been meeting. As I say, I think our officials should meet to consulted. It has been led by my right hon. Friend the discuss the proposal, and then let us get together with Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of the council very soon to take it further. Lancaster. Wehave listened to the views of the community leaders and individuals around the table, and evidence Regional Inequality has been shared. I can agree to her call for a weekly meeting, because the taskforce already meets weekly. Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab): What steps he is taking to ensure that local authority funding is used to Buckinghamshire Council: Devolution Proposals tackle regional inequality. [R] [908780] The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Aylesbury) (Con): What assessment he (Luke Hall): Since the start of the pandemic, we have has made of the proposals for devolution from given over £7.2 billion directly to councils. Sheffield city Buckinghamshire Council. [908779] region has received £127 million in un-ringfenced covid emergency funding, on top of an increase in core spending Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con): What assessment power of over £70 million this year, and it is set to he has made of the proposals on devolution from benefit further from the latest round of support for the Buckinghamshire Council. [908792] November lockdown. Households in the most deprived areas in England receive nearly three times as much The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government spending per home as those in the least deprived areas. (Luke Hall): We are committed to levelling up through further devolution, but our focus must be on tackling Dan Jarvis [V]: I thank the Minister for that response. covid-19. I know that Buckinghamshire Council has He will know that since 2015, South Yorkshire has worked tirelessly throughout this pandemic to support received £363 million from the local growth fund—money its community, helped by £32 million in additional that has created 15,000 jobs, funded the revitalisation of covid funding. We intend to bring forward the devolution town centres and supported investment from companies and local recovery White Paper in due course, detailing such as Boeing and McLaren. What plans does his how the UK Government will partner with places across Department have to extend this crucial pipeline of the country to build a sustainable economic recovery. funding beyond next March, so that Mayors and local leaders can rebuild their economies? Rob Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer, and I join him in his praise for Buckinghamshire Council, Luke Hall: I thank the hon Gentleman for his question, which has worked tirelessly through this pandemic. and for working so constructively with Government Does he agree with me that this proposal from the throughout this pandemic. He is right to highlight the council has all the potential ingredients for success, importance of local growth funding to places and people because it is place based and it has support from the up and down this country. The Budget this year did local enterprise partnership, health partners, universities, confirm up to £387 million in 2021-22 to provide certainty and the voluntary and community sector? Will he therefore for local areas, which allows them to continue with urge his officials to engage in conversations with the existing priority local growth fund projects that require council as soon as is practically possible? funding past this financial year. We will work closely with LEPs and Mayors to understand the changing Luke Hall: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. need of local economies, and will look at how this He is right to raise this hugely important issue, and I funding can be used alongside other resources to support was pleased to meet him and other colleagues from local economic recovery efforts. Further funding decisions Buckinghamshire just the week before last. We are will be announced in due course at the spending review. extremely grateful to the council for submitting its proposal, and I know my officials are looking at it (Blackburn) (Lab): When a Conservative closely. As I have said, we will set out details about our Chancellor delivered his austerity Budget a decade ago, approach to devolution in the White Paper. I absolutely he said we are “all in this together”, yet the reality has been agree that our officials should meet as soon as possible far from that, with communities in the north seeing a to discuss this proposal in greater depth. disproportionate impact on council budgets—in Blackburn, cut by over 50%—dramatically reducing our resilience Greg Smith: I thank the Minister for his answers, and to the covid crisis and our ability to recover and bounce particularly for his praise of Buckinghamshire Council back. Can the Minister assure the country that the throughout the pandemic. I agree with him entirely that Government will not break their promises again, and the focus must be on recovery from covid-19, and that is that his Department will take real action to address the precisely at the nub of the devolution proposals that health and economic inequalities in the north? 7 Oral Answers 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Oral Answers 8

Luke Hall: I disagree with the hon. Lady’s assertions. [V]: Since my election, I have heard from The council self-reported covid costs through September many constituents who have concerns about the neglect stand at £3.6 billion. We have provided £7.2 billion on of the high street in Blyth. The town has applied for top of our sales fees and charges scheme, which recoups money from the high streets fund as well as the towns councils with 75% of their lost income past that first fund. While I realise that there has to be a fair and 5%. The hon. Lady’s own council has had £87 million in transparent process for selecting the successful schemes, funding, £15 million in additional un-ringfenced covid will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will do all he funding and £1.37 million in test and trace support. The can to help the people of Blyth in the Conservative aim hon. Lady is also wrong to say that we are not targeting to level up? Let’s build back better. the funding where it is needed. In distributing our covid emergency funding, we have taken into account the Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. roles of deprivation and population, and the different Blyth is one of the initial places chosen to develop cost drivers up and down the country. We are listening proposals for the towns fund and for the future high to councils, we are working with them and we praise streets fund, and we recently provided £750,000 to make their extraordinary ability to respond to the pressures immediate improvements to Bowes Street. I was also of this pandemic. pleased that, as part of our £900 million getting building fund, two projects in Blyth are seeing investment from Town Regeneration the Government, including £2.6 million for the creation of the UK’s first offshore wind centre for robotics. So, (Burton) (Con): What steps he is taking from improving one of the town’s historic streets to to support regeneration in towns. [908781] green jobs for the future, the Government are investing in new opportunities for Blyth. Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) [V]: What steps he is taking to support regeneration in towns. [908784] : Over the last four years the average number of visits per person to Bolton town centre has Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con): What steps fallen, as has happened in much of the country—indeed, he is taking to support regeneration in towns. [908790] in Bolton’s case it has fallen by 37%—while vacancies and crime have risen. Can my right Friend assure my . (Broadland) (Con): What steps he is residents that the Government will make efforts to taking to support regeneration in towns. [908793] reverse this trend by encouraging growth in the markets of the future? The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick): We are witnessing a Robert Jenrick: I certainly can. We have taken a profound reshaping of our towns and high streets as number of steps throughout the pandemic to help small covid-19 continues to have a very significant impact on businesses, particularly in retail and hospitality, so that our communities. Our towns fund is investing £3.6 billion when, as we hope and expect, the national measures are in an initial 100 towns, which will help to renew town eased on 2 December, it will be easier for those businesses centres and high streets across the country.In September, to move forward. I was pleased last week to announce all 101 towns received their share of over £80 million to that I am extending the right that allows pubs, restaurants help deliver immediate improvements, and I was pleased and cafés to provide takeaway services until March 2022. to announce the first seven comprehensive town deals I have also extended the option for local authorities, last month, with further deals and the results of the such as the council in Bolton, to host outdoor markets future high streets competition being announced very and events, and for businesses such as pubs to use their shortly. land temporarily without planning permission, for example for marquees in pub gardens. Kate Griffiths: The market town of Uttoxeter in my constituency has been identified as well placed to support housing growth in the local plan. Will my right hon. Jerome Mayhew: Given that the likely response to Friend meet me to discuss the potential that the regeneration covid will mean that office space is needed much less in of Uttoxeter town centre offers and how we can ensure the future, and that that is likely to be a long-term that it meets the needs of those who live and work in the trend, does my right hon. Friend agree that that should area as the population increases? have a profound impact on the algorithmic distribution of housing numbers anticipated by the planning White Paper? Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend has the privilege of representing a historic market town in that I know well, and she is absolutely right to say that Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend makes an important covid-19 presents great opportunities for the repurposing point. We are seeing the most substantial change to our of offices and retail. We need to seize that moment and city centres and town centres since the second world ensure that we get more housing in our town centres. war, and that does give us pause for reflection. We now That is the way that we will drive footfall, and we will need to consider what the opportunities will be for the turn empty shops into thriving homes. We have already repurposing of offices as residential and for turning put in place new planning reforms to enable people to retail into mixed use, and that will, I think, lead us to a do just that, as well as to demolish vacant buildings and different approach to distributing housing numbers across turn them into housing, and we will continue to find the country. The consultation that he refers to has new flexibilities in the months and years ahead to do closed; we are considering the responses, and I will just that. make a statement on that in the weeks ahead. 9 Oral Answers 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Oral Answers 10

Dangerous Cladding: Leaseholder Support or started their remediation. As a result of the expert support we have provided to private building owners, ( Central) (Lab/Co-op): What we have supported something like 100 ACM projects to support he is providing to leaseholders with properties remediation. With respect to the £1 billion fund for that have dangerous cladding. [908782] non-ACM-clad buildings, I can tell him that we have had a very significant number of applications, which have worked through. A very significant number have The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher): We now been asked to make further information available, are providing £1.6 billion to speed up the removal of so we can advance those applications. We will get the unsafe cladding and make homes safer, and to make money out of the door as quickly as we can. We will them safer quicker. Where funding alone has not been also encourage builders and owners to remediate the enough to increase the pace of remediation, we are buildings themselves, because that is what they are providing direct expert support to projects. We will obliged to do. It should not fall on the taxpayer to pay continue to listen to leaseholders to resolve their concerns. for remediation. It is the responsibility in the first case of building owners, through their warrantee schemes or Lucy Powell [V]: I thank the Minister for his continued through the original builders. engagement on these issues, but, as he knows, the very difficult and serious issues now facing tens of thousands Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]: Could of leaseholders around the country are growing, not the Housing Minister clarify the Government’s policy declining, and they are taking a serious toll on people’s on what costs leaseholders should have to bear for the lives and livelihoods. From buildings unable to get removal of cladding? On 20 July, the Secretary of State, insurance, to the nightmares of acquiring an EWS1 in a written statement, very helpfully said: form even for buildings with no cladding and the many “The Government are clear that it is unacceptable for leaseholders now deemed out of scope of the building safety fund, to have to worry about the cost of fixing historic safety defects”.— this is becoming a national scandal and a real crisis for [Official Report, 20 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 89WS.] leaseholders. Will the Minister meet me and Manchester However, by the time we got to 16 October, the Housing City Council to discuss an excellent piece of work that it Minister himself said we should look for solutions has done on the wider and acute impacts of these issues on a place such as Manchester? “that protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs”. So, not any costs, but unaffordable costs. When the Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the hon. Lady Minister with responsibility for building safety came to for her question and for the tone of it. Of course I will the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and continue to engage with her and will happily meet her, Local Government, he could only define “affordable” as I think I did in July, to discuss these matters. She as costs that did not make someone bankrupt. Does the raised the EWS1 form particularly, and I think it would Housing Minister understand the great concern and be worthwhile if I said a few words about it. upset that the change of policy has caused for leaseholders, who thought they would bear no costs but could now be First, it is worth pointing out that the Royal Institution faced with substantial bills? Will he explain the change of Chartered Surveyors EWS1 form is not a Government of policy or, better still, go back to the original policy document; it was devised by RICS and by the industry. the Secretary of State identified that the costs should Not all lenders require it; some use other tools. Lenders not fall on leaseholders at all? that do require it are working with us to ensure that there are more nuanced tools available to resolve Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the Chairman of leaseholders’ concerns. I should say, with respect to the Select Committee and I am grateful for the report those lenders that use EWS1 forms for buildings less that the Committee produced on cladding. There has than 18 metres in height, that that is not something that been no change in policy.The Government are quite clear the Government support. We do not support a blanket that we do not expect, and we do not want, leaseholders approach to the use of EWS1 forms. Lenders should to bear the costs of remediation of unsafe buildings for use other tools in order to discuss the safety or otherwise which they were not responsible. That cost should fall of those sorts of buildings. on the owners, through the owners, the builders or any warrantee scheme the owners have. (Weaver Vale) (Lab): Over three years on from the Grenfell tragedy and one year since the Mr Speaker: Questions 20 and 21 have been withdrawn, Bolton Cube fire, 203 high-rise blocks are still clad with so could we have the answer to the substantive questions, flammable aluminium composite material, and many followed by David Linden from the SNP? thousands more are clad with equally flammable high- pressure laminate. Minister, is it not about time to come Stronger Towns Fund clean about the serious limitations of the size and scope of the building safety fund? Up to 1.5 million people, The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government such as Paul in Manchester, are desperate, trapped in (Luke Hall): The £3.6 billion towns fund is delivered in this nightmare. What bold, urgent action does the Minister England only. There are Barnett consequentials for intend to take? Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is the responsibility of the relevant devolved Administrations Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman to decide how that funding is spent. for his question. He will know, with respect to ACM cladding, that we have made £600 million available to David Linden ( East) (SNP): Quite aside remediate the most dangerous buildings. Something like from the Public Accounts Committee findings of Ministers 97% of buildings with ACM cladding have either completed wildly and inappropriately gerrymandering the funding 11 Oral Answers 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Oral Answers 12 process, I would like to ask the Minister about the : It is all very interesting that the Minister Barnettisation of that funding. It is amazing how all the reads out a letter that I have already received, so I have Tory MPs can stand up and say how much money their actually read it, but it does not answer the question at towns and constituencies are getting, yet it took the all. My question is about how we are going to make sure Secretary of State four months to confirm to me in that all the coal tips across the whole UK—because writing that the funding would be Barnettised. How there is still no register of them in England and Wales—are much is Scotland due to get and why have we not properly accounted for and properly made stable and received it yet? safe, so that we do not have another Aberfan disaster. I say this as much for constituencies in England as in Luke Hall: We will provide further clarity on the Wales, because the real danger is that if we have had to Barnett consequentials of the Department’s programme find £12.5 million for a single tip in Tylorstown that fell of work following the next spending review. into the river, imagine what the bill is going to be across the whole of England and Wales. It is time the Government Building Safety Programme woke up to this, and I really hope the Minister will answer the direct question about who is going to be footing the bill. Local authorities will be bankrupted by Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP): What recent this if we are not careful. discussions he has had with (a) firefighter unions and (b) local authorities on the Building Safety Programme. Christopher Pincher: I was just checking that the hon. [908786] Gentleman had received the letter and that he had read it. He has, and I am pleased and grateful for his further The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher): My contribution. He will know that Welsh local authorities Department is in regular contact with local authorities started the 2020-21 financial year with over £1.4 billion and the Local Government Association as part of the of usable reserves. Of that, £200 million was general building safety programme. Local authorities play an and unallocated. As I said to him, the Treasury is in important role in advancing remediation. They are routinely discussion with the Welsh Government regarding the invited to meetings with officials and are represented on funding on this topic. Welsh authorities should discuss the early adopters group. Eleven local authorities across further funding with the Welsh Government and I attended the Department’s remediation summit encourage him to do similarly. in September. Covid-19 Lockdown: Local Authority Support Kenny MacAskill [V]: Difficulty in borrowing on or selling a home may be understandable when it is caused by unexpected natural events, climatic or otherwise. It is Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con): entirely unacceptable, though, when it is caused by What financial support the Government is providing to obvious Government changes, especially to building local authorities during the November 2020 covid-19 regulations. The Fire Brigades Union and local authorities lockdown. [908789] know what needs to be done, but it is only the Government who actually have the purse strings and can take the The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government action to put homeowners out of the misery that they (Luke Hall): Since the start of the pandemic, we have find themselves in. When will that be done? provided over £7.2 billion directly to councils. We have also confirmed further support for local authorities Christopher Pincher: It is being done. We have made through the extension of the contain outbreak management available £4 million to local authorities to support a fund, and Cornwall will receive an extra £35 million data collection exercise looking at external wall systems. from the additional resources grant and business grants Together with the Home Office, we have made £20 million for closed businesses. available to increase the capacity and capability of fire and rescue services in their conduct of fire protection Mrs Murray [V]: I thank the Government for their activity.We are backing local authorities. We are backing generous support to councils during this difficult time. I the fire and rescue service. I only wish the hon. Gentleman have two very important crossings across the Tamar in knew that. my constituency, owned by Cornwall and Plymouth councils, which have run into financial difficulty. How does my right hon. Friend the Minister advise that this Disused Coal Tips: Safety and Stability situation should be resolved?

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): What discussions he Luke Hall: I know that this is a hugely important has had with Cabinet colleagues on local authorities’ matter for my hon. Friend and her constituents. Since responsibilities for the stability and safety of disused the beginning of the pandemic, we have provided Cornwall coal tips. [908788] Council with over £60 million and over £30 million to Plymouth City Council. Local authorities should be The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher): The able to claim for relevant irrecoverable losses from toll Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrote to the hon. Member bridges and roads. These losses have a named category in October saying that he is expecting to provide £2.5 million in the form through which local authorities make their needed for tip repairs in Tylorstown. The letter also claims. However,it is for local authorities to be responsible clarifies that he is waiting to hear further from the for making sure that the claims that they make under Welsh Government on additional requests to access the the scheme meet the principles that we set out. We reserve and is working with the Welsh Government’s would advise her local authorities to consider these Finance Minister on this very matter. carefully before making any submissions. 13 Oral Answers 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Oral Answers 14

Affordable Housing communities in difficulty from the cuts and finally giving a rise to the key workers who have done so much Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): What to keep our country going? steps he is taking to improve the supply of affordable housing. [908791] Luke Hall: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman speak like that about local authority when he supported The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher): The and voted for the local government finance settlement Government are investing £12.2 billion in affordable this year. As I said, since the start of the pandemic we housing over the next five years from next year. That have provided £7.2 billion in funding. Wakefield has includes £11.5 billion for the affordable homes programme, received £31 million across four tranches of unring-fenced which we anticipate will provide up to 180,000 new funding, the last including deprivation, population and affordable homes, should economic conditions allow. cost driver indicators, too. It has also received £2 million Furthermore, at spring statement 2019 we announced a for test and trace, £7 million from the infection control new £3 billion affordable homes guarantee scheme, fund and more than £40 million in additional grants. As which will build on the success of the existing £3.24 billion the hon. Gentleman failed to do so, may I use this scheme and support the delivery of new build affordable opportunity again to recognise the incredible work of homes. councils, who have been dynamic and energetic in responding to an incredibly difficult period? Mr Robertson [V]: I thank the Minister for that very Towns Fund full reply; it is good that so much work is going on. Does he think it might be useful to revisit the definition Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con): What progress of affordable homes? In the past, we tended to use the the Government have made on the towns fund. [908796] definition of 80% of average market value, which, when prices are high—as they often are—is still not affordable. Luke Hall: On 27 October, we announced the first Will he consider that, please? seven town deal offers, worth almost £180 million, for Barrow-in-Furness, Blackpool, Darlington, Norwich, Christopher Pincher: I am always happy to consider Peterborough, Torquay and Warrington. Of course, we my hon. Friend’s suggestions. He will know that the look forward to receiving further town deal proposals, affordable homes definition in the national planning including from Thornaby in my hon. Friend’sconstituency, policy framework includes: in the coming months. We will also bring forward a “Housing for sale or rent, for those whose needs are not met by competitive element of the fund so that more places can the market” benefit from investment that will improve our towns and the assumption is that that is at 80% of average and high streets and drive long-term economic growth. cost. Of course, we also have a social rent option that local authorities can leverage, and we have certainly Matt Vickers [V]: I am currently working alongside allowed local authorities greater ease in developing councillors, businesses and community groups to put their own social homes. I also point him to our first together Thornaby’s bid for up to £25 million. We want homes programme, which provides discounts of at least to get rid of the Eagle hotel and other blights on our 30% on homes in perpetuity so that people can realise town centre as well as improve training and skills the dream of their own home. opportunities, leisure facilities and cycle routes—and, importantly,we want to make life-changing improvements Covid-19: Local Authority Support to housing. Does my hon. Friend agree that local people know their area best? Will he help unblock any bureaucratic Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab): What assessment he barriers that prevent money being spent on local priorities? has made of the adequacy of support given to local authorities in areas with high covid-19 infection rates. Luke Hall: Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for all [908794] his work. The objective of the towns deals is to drive the economic regeneration of towns, including through The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government improving transport and digital infrastructure, supporting (Luke Hall): Councils’ self-reported figures suggest that skills development and making the most of the planning local authorities spent an additional £3.6 billion through powers to create a supportive environment for residents September as a result of covid. Since the start of the and businesses. The towns fund will support mixed-use pandemic, we have provided over £7.2 billion directly to redevelopment in towns such as Thornaby, creating councils and are now providing new funding for national thriving places for people to live and work. Each town restrictions. I hope the hon. Gentleman will also welcome has its own local priorities and should align its proposed the additional funding of over £40 million that Wakefield interventions with the towns fund intervention framework, Council has received to support its community so far as set out in the further guidance. this year. Traveller Communities: Planning Policy

Jon Trickett [V]: Austerity impacted most on the Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): What poorer communities right across the north and elsewhere. steps he is taking to improve planning policy for Traveller In Wakefield alone we have lost almost £50 million from communities. [908797] local care services, schools, youth support and child services, not to mention the wage freezes for key workers. The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher): The The impact of covid in damaging community resilience Government’s response to the consultation on powers for is apparent to all. Is it not time for the Minister to show dealing with unauthorised development and encampments that he has learned lessons by restoring funding to those proposed measures related to Traveller site provision 15 Oral Answers 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Oral Answers 16 and strengthening planning enforcement powers. I can to my constituents affected by the ongoing cladding confirm to my hon. Friend that further changes to scandal? Will he arrange a socially distant meeting with planning policy will be considered as part of our reforms me to discuss this further? to the wider planning system set out in our White Paper, “Planning for the Future”. Robert Jenrick: I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady. The noble Lord Greenhalgh, the building Andrew Selous: In parts of the country, we have the safety Minister, and I have been meeting lenders and double disaster of settled residents moving away in fear UK Finance to discuss the EWS1 form and to urge and Traveller children having the worst outcomes of them to take a more proportionate, risk-based approach. any group of children. Can the Minister reassure me The EWS1 form was, as we heard earlier, designed for that the review that his Department is undertaking will those buildings over 18 metres with external wall systems. put an end to the unacceptable situation in which both It is now being used for buildings below 18 metres and those groups find themselves buildings without any cladding at all. That is causing misery to thousands of people across the country, and it needs to change. Christopher Pincher: My hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on these issues, as have several others in [908836] Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) the House.He will know that the Government’soverarching (Con) [V]: I was glad to hear the Secretary of State aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers recognise the continuing issues with the EWS1 forms, and their children, but we must not be blind to the rights and perhaps we can speak further about that. I also of the settled community as well. The distress that some welcome the Housing Minister’s acceptance that local communities face due to antisocial behaviour is leaseholders should not bear the costs of remediating unacceptable. Local authorities have a wide range of cladding for which they have no responsibility. Does the powers at their disposal, including the Anti-Social Secretary of State accept that by the same logic, and out Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, but I can of common decency, neither should leaseholders be confirm to him that I will happily consider his and expected to bear the costs of items such as a waking other proposals as we work through the contributions watch, which arise directly from the cladding itself to the White Paper consultation, to ensure that our having been unsafe, because of regulatory failure? This planning reform also encapsulates the concerns he raises. has cost constituents of mine in Northpoint in excess of half a million pounds. Topical Questions Mr Speaker: I think we have got the message. [908834] Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP): If he will make a statement on his departmental Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend will know that my responsibilities. Department is working closely with the residents of Northpoint to ensure that they have access to funding. They are part of the building safety fund and will The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and benefit from that £1.6 billion. He is right also to draw Local Government (Robert Jenrick): I would like to take attention to the waking watch issue, which is increasingly this opportunity once again to thank our local councils a national scandal in itself; this is a rip-off. We have and councillors across the country for their resilience published research that demonstrates that some operators and hard work in this period of new national restrictions. of these businesses—the contractors—are charging We are providing more than £7 billion of funding outrageous fees for very little. We will be reporting that directly to councils alongside our sales, fees and charges to the regulatory authorities and we hope that they will scheme, which we expect to also be worth well in excess clamp down on these practices as quickly as possible. of £1 billion this year. When it comes to the role that councils have played in protecting the most vulnerable (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op): There is in society—rough sleepers—their work has truly been growing public concern that the Secretary of State may world class. Last week, I announced the launch of the have misused taxpayers’ money from the £3.6 billion Protect programme, the next phase in our strategy, towns fund to boost the Conservative party’s general which has been widely praised as one of the most election campaign, but he can easily clear the matter up. successful of its kind anywhere in the world. I thank Will he publish, in full, the accounting officer’s advice local councillors in advance for the work they will do in and the full criteria that he and the former Minister of the weeks to come. The Prime Minister and I have been State, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen clear that, despite the challenges we face, our mission to (), used when they blocked funding for towns deliver the housing our country needs continues at pace. ranked among the 100 most deprived and instead funnelled We have kept the market open in order to protect house millions of pounds to each other’s constituencies ahead building and ensure that we protect the millions of jobs of the general election? that depend upon it. Robert Jenrick: The Department has already made it Alison Thewliss: We do not have the leasehold system clear that a robust process was established—before I in Scotland, yet as a result of rules drawn up with the became Secretary of State. It was followed to the letter English leasehold system in mind, each individual owner and we will not apologise for investing in communities must get their own EWS1 assessment carried out. How that have been under-invested in and undervalued by does the Secretary of State intend to resolve this costly the Labour party for generations. With respect to the and bureaucratic system, which is clearly not fit for accounting officer’s report, accounting officer assessments purpose in Scotland and which is causing such difficulty are not routinely published. That is a matter for the 17 Oral Answers 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Oral Answers 18

Department, which I am sure will consider it and reply dedicated funding to local areas with the highest numbers to the Select Committee in due course. But I can assure of rough sleepers. Alongside that there is a £2 million the hon. Gentleman that he will not deter us from our transformation fund to help faith and community centres mission to level up all parts of the country. to move away from night shelters and into more innovative and positive options for shelter guests. I was pleased [908837] Dr (Runnymede and Weybridge) that my right hon. Friend directed me towards our (Con): . My right hon. Friend knows that homes alone noble Friend Lord Bird; I am happy to continue to will not stop homelessness, and that many of the drivers engage with him and her, as is the Under-Secretary of of homelessness, such as mental illness, addiction, debt State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and low social capital, need tackling in a comprehensive my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood homelessness strategy. Will he confirm that the Protect (Kelly Tolhurst). programme will co-ordinate this wraparound support, which is so needed to help people who are homeless? [908835] Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab): Setting aside a general funding gap of about £56 million, Robert Jenrick: I can do that. My hon. Friend shares and including an as yet unconfirmed £7 million income my belief that street homelessness is a crisis not just of compensation scheme payment, Cheshire West and Chester housing, but of health, mental health and addiction as Council will still be £1 million in the red because of well. Our approach from the start of the pandemic has covid activities. Will the Government refer back to the been not only to bring people in off the streets into safe Chancellor’s promise to do “whatever it takes” and and secure accommodation, but to ensure at all times promise to make good on the covid funding gap? Or that they have that wraparound support. That was part will they once again leave local governments dangling in of the success of Everyone In and it is part of the the wind? Protect programme, and it learns from the enormous success of the Housing First pilots that we have initiated Robert Jenrick: I thank the officers and councillors at in parts of the country. Cheshire West and Chester Council for the hard work that they have done already and no doubt will do in the David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP): Last week, I weeks ahead. We have provided a great deal of support met Mencap, which was extremely concerned about the to the council: total covid-19 additional funding is lack of clarity on the shared prosperity fund. Disabled £25 million, and total funding from across Government people have benefited enormously from the European is almost £39 million. As the hon. Gentleman says, that social fund, but mere days out from crashing out of the will be followed up by further funding from the sales, transition period the Government are woefully silent on fees and charges scheme, which contributes 75p in the the future of this. So will the Secretary of State agree to pound in respect of lost income for councils. I have also meet myself and Mencap to outline a way forward for committed—I will say more on this at the spending the shared prosperity fund and give disabled people review—to a similar scheme in respect of lost income clarity? for council tax and business rates.

Robert Jenrick: I would be happy to have that [908843] Sally-Ann Hart ( and Rye) (Con): My conversation. My officials have been engaging with right hon. Friend and this Government have prioritised officials with the devolved Administrations, from all ending homelessness more than any other Administration. nations of the United Kingdom. We have said time and It is widely known that social housing can play a key again that further details of the shared prosperity fund role in preventing and ending homelessness by providing will be published at the spending review, and the hon. security of tenure, affordability and a safety net to Gentleman does not have long to wait for that. thousands of individuals and families.This year’saffordable homes programme is welcome, but will my right hon. [908839] (South ) Friend please update the House on what measures he is (Con) [V]: My right hon. Friend might recall that back taking to increase investment in social housing to help in the summer I wrote to him, along with my hon. to end homelessness? Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), Lord Bird, who founded The Big Issue, and Robin Burgess, Christopher Pincher: My hon. Friend rightly points the chief executive of the Hope Centre in Northampton, out the £11.5 billion that we have made available in the who all wanted to recommend to him covid-safe sleeping next five years to build 180,000 new affordable homes, a pod-style accommodation for those who, despite the significant proportion of which will be for affordable or Government’s best efforts, will be sleeping rough this social rent. We have already heard about the £700 million winter. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what steps he or so in total that we are spending to tackle homelessness is putting in place to ensure that those who do end up and rough sleeping, and I direct my hon. Friend towards on our streets are still safe and are not forced to be in the abolition of the housing revenue account cap, which night shelters, which for so many are truly terrifying allows local authorities to build social homes if they places? wish to. It is a local authority matter and we encourage them to do so. The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher): I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for the concern that she [908838] Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): Tempted as I evinces in respect of this matter. I am happy to update am to ask a question about tips again, I am going to ask her. The Government are providing a £10 million cold aboutsomethingcompletelydifferent:braininjury.Acquired weather fund to all local authorities, to help them to brain injury is a hidden epidemic in this country, and bring forward self-contained accommodation this winter. local authorities often have to bear the significant costs Our new £15 million protect programme is providing when somebody’s neuro-rehabilitation has not been able 19 Oral Answers 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Oral Answers 20 to be followed through. With covid this year as well, Robert Jenrick: I congratulate my hon. Friend on there will be many thousands of families who would securing the Second Reading of his Bill. We are looking dearly love their loved one to be able to live an independent to strengthen the powers and sanctions in respect of life, but they need local authorities to be able to step up both heritage and planning enforcement as part of our to the mark. Will the Secretary of State meet me and White Paper reforms of the planning system. I am sure others who are interested in the subject to see whether that he will be lobbying us to ensure that that is part of there is a way to get better co-reliance among all the the wider package. different agencies that work with people with brain injury,including people who have neuro-cognitive problems [908841] (Ellesmere Port and Neston) from covid? (Lab): When the Secretary of State ignored his own civil servants’ advice on which areas to support with the Robert Jenrick: I would be delighted to do so. The towns fund, was that on his own initiative or was he hon. Gentleman has been a fantastic champion of this receiving instructions from Downing Street? cause. Robert Jenrick: It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman [908844] Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con): The shadow makes party political points without understanding the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon North facts, because no Minister in my Department has ignored (Steve Reed), has repeatedly defended Tony Newman, the advice of their officials. The Department produced who was until recently the leader of the now bankrupt a robust process, which was followed by myself and any Labour-run Croydon Council. Does my right hon. Friend other Minister in the Department, so he should be agree that instead of trying to score political points careful before making wild and false accusations. attacking the Government, the shadow Secretary of [908846] Mrs (Dover) (Con): For years, State should look a little closer to home, as people are some water companies and Ofwat have failed to get a being seriously let down by their Labour councils as grip on repeated sewage and water flooding, including public funds are being spent inappropriately? I have in the historic town of Deal. As a result, planning seen this— objections are mounting against the delivery of much- Mr Speaker: Order. In fairness to the Secretary of needed and wanted local homes. Will my right hon. State, questions are meant to be short and punchy—we Friend consider what more can be done to ensure that are getting very stuck. Come on, Secretary of State, I additional planned housing delivery can be matched by am sure you have an answer. additional planned capacity in water, electricity and broadband utilities? Robert Jenrick: The situation in Croydon is deeply Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. concerning. There does appear to have been catastrophic She is a doughty campaigner for her constituents in financial mismanagement. Ultimately, it is the people of Dover, and particularly, in this case, in Deal. She will Croydon who will suffer as a result of that failed council. know that the national planning policy framework makes The council has decided to issue a section 114 notice. it clear that local authorities should make provision for We will consider the findings of the urgent review, infrastructure, including water supply and energy,through which concludes later this month. their strategic planning authorities. As to what further we can do, our White Paper on planning reform proposes [908840] Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab): There have been an infrastructure levy that will get that sort of infrastructure significant reductions in Government funding for children’s that she refers to in place at the get-go so that communities social care since 2010, which have led to more children get not just the housing they need but the infrastructure entering care due to false cuts in prevention. Will the to go with it. Minister ensure that any new funding formula for councils fully recognises the pressures and the associated need, [908842] Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) especially in areas with higher deprivation? [V]: Ealing Council is facing a funding shortfall of around £30 million even after efficiency savings and Robert Jenrick: As my right hon. Friend the Minister delaying investment. That is despite a promise from the for Housing has said repeatedly today, the funding that Secretary of State that it would have everything that it we have put into councils since the start of the pandemic needed to fight covid-19. Will the Secretary of State —more than £7 billion—has been deployed taking stick to his promise and give local authorities what they deprivation into consideration to ensure that the councils need, or will he be the one to explain why children’s that need the money the most have the greatest share. centres, libraries and sports facilities have to close? As we approach the spending review, I will, of course, be arguing for further funding for local authorities so Robert Jenrick: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that they are properly and sustainably financed in the we are very much sticking to our promise to support year ahead. local authorities. We have already given local authorities more than £7 billion since the start of the pandemic, [908845] (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con): with the sales fees and charges and the business rates My right hon. Friend will be aware that I brought before and council tax schemes. We are approaching £10 billion the House my Planning (Proper Maintenance of Land) of additional support for local authorities, and in his Bill back in September with the support of Historic case, in Ealing, it is £30 million, so he is quite wrong to England. Will he confirm whether he will adopt this in say that we are not supporting his constituents. the planning reform Bill, helping my fight to protect and preserve our nation’s heritage at places such as [908851] Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD): Under the planning Price & Kensington in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove laws, Bath and North East Council in my and Talke? constituency negotiated a 64.9% biodiversity net gain 21 Oral Answers 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Oral Answers 22 as part of planning consent for a new development. Mr Speaker: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Why does the Secretary of State propose to take that Members participating in this item of business and the opportunity away from local planning authorities, given safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am that the UK has declared a climate emergency? suspending the House for three minutes.

Robert Jenrick: I am happy to look into what the hon. Lady says, but she is mistaken. This party is doing quite the opposite. Weare legislating to embed biodiversity 3.35 pm net gain as an essential part of the planning system. Sitting suspended. 23 16 NOVEMBER 2020 24

Speaker’s Statement Participation in Debates

3.38 pm 3.39 pm Mr Speaker: Before the urgent question, I wish to Mr (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) (Urgent make a short statement about deferred Divisions. When Question): To ask the Leader of the House of Commons arrangements were announced for deferred Divisions if he will make a statement on participation in debates. with social distancing to take place in the Members’ Library, the period for voting was set from 11.30 am to The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob 3.30 pm. In view of the scale of proxy votes now in Rees-Mogg): I am grateful for the opportunity to respond place, I propose to reduce the time period. It will now to this urgent question. be 11.30 am to 2 pm. This reduction will have effect for any Divisions this Wednesday and any subsequent Throughout this year, the pandemic has posed Wednesday. Deferred Divisions will continue to take unprecedented challenges to the everyday functioning place in the Members’ Library. I also remind the House of our parliamentary democracy, but thanks to your that hon. Members with a proxy vote in operation tireless efforts, Mr Speaker, and those of the House cannot vote in person during a deferred Division. staff on whom we all rely, so much more has been possible than some might have feared. During the initial lockdown, the hybrid proceedings allowed scrutiny to continue, even if it were not possible for the Government to proceed with their legislative agenda in a timely manner. During the period after Parliament returned in June, we were able to resume legislative scrutiny both in the Chamber and in Committees, even if other aspects of our normal work, like Westminster Hall, remained silent. During recent weeks, Westminster Hall has resumed its work, even if it has not yet been possible for all Members to take part. Throughout this year, our approach has been to maximise what is possible within the limitations placed upon us.This is a continuing process, and our arrangements remain under review. In practice, that means applying two principles consistently. First, we must continue to explore what more is possible. To that end, I have worked with the House authorities throughout the year in support of their efforts to surmount the technical and capacity constraints that they have faced. Secondly, both Parliament as an institution and Members individually should follow both the letter and spirit of public health guidance. As an institution, we have treated Parliament as a workplace no different from any other in making it covid-secure. As individual Members of Parliament, we are no different from any other key worker up and down the country seeking to discharge their responsibilities within the constraints imposed by the pandemic. We as MPs want to do the best we can for our constituents within the context of varying personal circumstances and experiences, and of course developing national and local guidance. In last week’s business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford () made a brave and moving appeal to be allowed to contribute more to our proceedings through virtual participation. This followed the appeals of a number of other Members. While my understanding is that capacity constraints prevent us from extending Westminster Hall debates to Members participating virtually, my hon. Friend has certainly convinced me that we should seek to do more to support additional virtual participation in the Commons Chamber. I have therefore decided that, in line with the Government advice that the clinically extremely vulnerable should not go into work, we should work with the House authorities to find a solution. I am exploring how we can support additional virtual participation in the Commons, despite capacity constraints, for those who 25 Participation in Debates16 NOVEMBER 2020 Participation in Debates 26 are clinically extremely vulnerable, and aim to bring a the country that can compete with that. That is important motion before the House. This is the latest step in our work because ensuring that people who come into this place to maximise what is possible within the limitations placed are safe has been your highest priority, Mr Speaker, and upon us, enabling the Government to legislate and the also, of course, the high priority of the Clerk of the House to conduct scrutiny, thus enabling us, together, House of Commons, who has the technical legal to carry out our collective duties to the . responsibility for the safety of this place. The second point is that it is important that legislation Mr Baron [V]: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting passes and that the Government are held to account in this urgent question. As someone who is shielding with an effective way. There, I look at what happened in May his wife, who is herself clinically extremely vulnerable, and June, when a number of activities were cancelled and having, with others, raised this issue with you, altogether: we did not have Backbench business days Mr Speaker, with the Whips and with my right hon. and we did not have Westminster Hall, but we had three Friend the Leader of the House last week, we think that days a week primarily of Government business. The the Government have been wrong to forbid Members Government business was very heavily truncated and with proxy votes to contribute virtually to Chamber debates. Ministers, to my mind—and I think of many right hon. After all, we have been able to ask the Prime Minister and hon. Members —were not fully or properly held to questions, we have been able to ask Secretaries of State account during that period. It was, in the words of the questions, and we have been able to participate in all votes. Chairman of the Procedure Committee, “sub-optimal”, It therefore makes little sense to us that we could a word that became very fashionable. My right hon. participate in the debates only if we appeared in person— Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen something that is not possible if shielding or living with Bradley) is very much a leader of fashion, and certainly people who are. Of course we accept that there is a in linguistic fashion she set the tone with the word balance to be struck between continuing the essential “sub-optimal”. But it also meant that Government work of Parliament and accommodating the exceptional legislation was not getting through in a timely manner. situation of the pandemic, but the current measures do Government legislation is not just important from the not strike that right balance. They have, however point of view of Government, it is important from the inadvertently, created a hierarchy of MPs, which few point of view of democratic propriety. The Government MPs welcome. were elected just about a year ago on a manifesto and I welcome this announcement from my right hon. they have a duty to the British people to deliver on what Friend, in so far as it goes, and look forward to hearing how was proposed, in addition to ensuring that we are the review pans out. Many colleagues across the House prepared for 31 December, which is quite an important will also be pleased at the announcement. However, he date, because on that day the transition period ends and is still excluding Members who are shielding with wives, legislation has to be in place to ensure that. Unfortunately, husbands or partners or who are themselves clinically with the fully hybrid proceedings, that was not working extremely vulnerable. This exclusion is insensitive to and that is why we had to move back to a more physical family situations, and I ask him to think again, because Parliament to ensure that we could deliver on the manifesto it makes even less sense now, given his announcement to commitments, ensure that the Government were held to the House today. I suggest that there is little room for account, allow for Backbench business debates and get procedural purity in a pandemic. Will he therefore meet on with business. me, virtually, so that we can discuss this further? There is one other very important and fundamental point which I would like to make to my hon. Friend, Mr Rees-Mogg: I can certainly answer the last bit of because I am sure he will understand it and will sympathise the question first. I would always be delighted to meet with it. As Members of Parliament, we are key workers my hon. Friend at any point, and we can do it virtually and we must behave as other key workers do. Last week, or simply by telephone, if that is convenient for him. As I had to write to a constituent of mine in exactly the Leader of the House, I have made it clear always to all same position as my hon. Friend. The Government right hon. and hon. Members that it is my role to guidance is that if you are living with somebody who is have as many meetings as right hon. and hon. Members clinically extremely vulnerable, it does not mean that want, so it would be a pleasure to see my hon. Friend. you should not go to work in a covid-safe environment. He raises a very important point and one on which I That is the advice of Her Majesty’s Government to our have the greatest sympathy with him and other right constituents, and I do not think it would be right of me hon. and hon. Members: it is, of course, difficult for to stand here and say that we should treat Members of those with family responsibilities and those with obligations Parliament differently from the way we are treating our both to themselves and to others who are concerned constituents. Indeed, I believe it is of fundamental about their safety and the safety of members of their importance that, as we carry out our duty as key family. There are, however, a number of constraints on workers, we must consider how other key workers are what can be done practically,so these are the considerations operating, and we must be shoulder to shoulder with we have to take into account before making the decision them. So to ensure the legislative programme and proper as to what we are to do in this Chamber and how we are accountability, we are able to make further steps to to react to all the various circumstances of individual allow more remote participation, but we are not able to Members of Parliament. make remote participation unlimited, much though I First, it is important that the House of Commons is a think everybody sympathises with my hon. Friend and covid-secure workplace, and— very much under your other Members in similar positions. auspices, Mr Speaker,but also under the House authorities’ —that has been ensured. Great steps have been taken Valerie Vaz ( South) (Lab): I thank the hon. since March to ensure that covid security is of the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for highest level. I think there would be few workplaces in securing the urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for 27 Participation in Debates16 NOVEMBER 2020 Participation in Debates 28

[Valerie Vaz] (Ogmore) (Lab): Embarrassing! granting it. Why did the Leader of the House think it Mr Rees-Mogg: As the hon. Gentleman says from a was necessary to make some sort of announcement on sedentary position, that was embarrassing—I happen Twitter without having the courtesy to let the House know? to agree with him on this occasion. He will know that I wrote to him on Friday, along with the chair of the Human Rights Committee, my right Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab): No—you’re hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell embarrassing! and Peckham (Ms Harman), and the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Mr Rees-Mogg: That is the risk of sedentary Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), to interventions; one hears part of them, but not necessary ask him to look again at participation of hon. and right all of them in their fullness. I point out to the hon. hon. Members in debates. The Leader of the House has Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) that that is been warned on a number of occasions that this would why “sedentary chuntering”, as the former Speaker happen, and on each occasion he has said no, no, no, used to call it, is invariably not wise. without even considering what we have been saying. I turn back to the substance of the points made by I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: everyone was the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). moved by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford She did indeed write to me over the weekend. It was (Tracey Crouch) when she asked at business questions important that these issues were in the public domain why she was not allowed to take part in the debate—if and being considered and that the Government, as they she had been able to, imagine how someone going said they would, were keeping them under review. As I through what she is going through could have informed also said, I was very moved by the contribution of my that debate. hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford I have previously raised the point that there are two (Tracey Crouch). How could one not be? She is a classes of Members, and that that is undemocratic. The remarkable person. It has to be said that my right hon. right hon. Gentleman says that it is our duty to be here Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham but it is our duty to represent our constituents, and the (Dame Cheryl Gillan) has also made similar appeals of Leader of the House is suppressing and extinguishing a very moving kind. the voices of right hon. and hon. Members in that debate. It is important to recognise that the Government do Effectively, he is saying that all Members are equal but listen to what right hon. and hon. Members are saying. some are more equal than others. Where have we heard The Government recognise the strength of arguments that before? put forward and that there is a special set of people with Will the Leader of the House now accept that he has the most troubling conditions who, under the current excluded hon. Members from doing their democratic rules, which came in Thursday a week past, are being duty for their constituents, and will he please revert advised not to go to work. That was not the case back to the world-leading system that worked? Such before then, so when my right hon. Friend the Member debates should be for every Member, not just a certain for Chesham and Amersham made her requests, the class. Why should hon. Members be identified as clinically Government guidance was not of that kind; it had extremely vulnerable? That is a privacy issue. changed by the time my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford made her appeal. It is an The contacts of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee appeal that many Members feel should be answered, Anderson) may well have been identified and isolated, and that is what we are trying to do. but he did not have a proxy and he was in the queue—that means that he has exposed all hon. Members who were The right hon. Member for Walsall South rightly in that queue. Will the Leader of the House look again calls for there to be equality among Members, and at remote voting? He said that the system broke down, indeed there is. Every Member who is not extremely but that was once and it was corrected. We are so far clinically vulnerable is in the same position as other key down the road from the start. The Lords are actually workers, which is that, as long as their workplace is undertaking seven to eight hours of virtual proceedings covid-secure—that is a fundamental qualification—they and they are now looking at the second Chamber. Debate are not expected to stay away from work. I reiterate the is controlled by call lists, anyway, so will the right hon. point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Gentleman look at Westminster Hall and Public Bill Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) that we should Committees, which involve small groups and could be expect to behave and be treated in the same way as other done by Zoom? Will he also confirm how long the key workers. That is fundamental. The nation is facing proposed changes will last and commit to cross-party this virus together, and there is not a different situation talks before they are removed? for us as opposed to other key workers. Finally, I wish a speedy recovery to the Prime Minister, Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): They are not shirking. the hon. Member for Ashfield and all other Members who are isolating. Mr Rees-Mogg: I am not saying that anybody is Mr Rees-Mogg: Indeed. We all wish all hon. Members shirking; I am simply saying that we are in the same who are suffering from covid a speedy recovery and let position as other key workers, as I think is right and proper. us hope that those who are isolating have not caught the On the issue of people revealing their medical conditions, disease. I have of course thought very carefully about that I really would not hold up their lordships’ House as a because I know that many people would not want to model. Having a voting system that collapses is deeply reveal what their medical condition is. The issue is that unsatisfactory and meant that their business for a day either we would have to have an entirely virtual Parliament was lost. That was a failure of their system— with all Members Zooming in—otherwise one could 29 Participation in Debates16 NOVEMBER 2020 Participation in Debates 30 say, “That person has something wrong and that person Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]: Well, doesn’t,”—which we found from experience did not at least the Leader of the House has now accepted that, work, or we would have to have it for a very small group. if Members are not able to be physically present, it is The very small group have a choice. They are free to because of legitimate concerns they have about their contribute, with a very wide range of rights, in interrogative own and the public’s health, rather than because they proceedings in a way that allows our business to be are work-shy and trying to avoid their responsibilities. carried out properly. The limitation remains only in Maybe we should be grateful for small mercies, but those areas of business that need debate and the flow of really, this is far too little, far too late. debate. Exemptions will be made for a limited number The Leader of the House keeps suggesting that MPs of people, who will have the choice whether to tell the are key workers, but that does not mean that we need to House about their need to contribute virtually because be in the Chamber in order to do our work. Indeed, in they are severely clinically vulnerable. any other workplace, we would be criticising employers that did not provide facilities for their workers to work If I may use you, Mr Speaker, as a case in point—I from home, especially when we know them to be available. hope you will forgive me—you have brought your diabetes Introducing virtual facilities on a restricted basis is not to the attention of people by being open about it, and going to work. Members should not have to disclose some Members wish to do that. I absolutely understand private information about their health in order to have that other Members do not wish to, and nobody will be the right to represent their constituents. That is why he forced to reveal a medical condition if they do not wish must trust that, if a Member chooses not to be here, it is to do so. for a proper and honourable reason, and he must therefore allow all Members to take advantage of the virtual Sir (Worthing West) (Con): I think facility. the whole House will welcome the flexibility that is following on from my right hon. Friend’s review of the Mr Rees-Mogg: I am afraid I disagree with the hon. situation. May I put it to him that it might be better, Gentleman. The default position should be that Members when he has developed proposals in consultation with attend the House to carry out the business of the you, Mr Speaker, and the House authorities, for them House. We are key workers, and we have a job to do. I to be put to the House for debate, with the possibility of am slightly surprised that the Scottish National party amendment, and for it to be for the House to decide values democracy so lowly that it does not think that it what instructions to give you on what should be allowed? is important to be here and to be actively involved in the democracy of our nation. I know that the SNP is not I think there is something inelegant—perhaps I am perhaps the greatest admirer of this Parliament that we taking the words that my right hon. Friend would have could find, but they are still Members of it, and they are used were he still a Back Bencher—about the Government here to represent their constituents—or at least some saying what Back Benchers should be able to contribute are—and this is an important contribution to the national in this House. We pay tribute to my right hon. Friend debate. for the way he has conducted himself as Leader of the House; he has been helpful to most MPs most of the The reason for making exceptional provision is exactly time. As he said on Thursday: that—it is exceptional. It is exactly what other workplaces are doing to help, aid and assist those who are not able “With debates, we need to have the proper holding to account to turn up for work because of the Government’s advice, of Ministers, which is the purpose of the debates, and to have the interventions that make a debate, rather than a series of statements. which is that if someone is extremely clinically vulnerable, It is a question of striking a careful balance, in these difficult they should not go into work. That is being facilitated. I times, between ensuring that Parliament can serve its constituents disagree with the hon. Gentleman; it is not a matter of in full and making sure that Members can complete their duties choice for MPs. The default position is that Members as safely and as effectively as possible.”—[Official Report, 12 November should be here to do their job. That is their duty. There 2020; Vol. 683, c. 1071.] are some people in exceptional circumstances who need Those words match what our hon. Friend the Member alternative arrangements to be made, and the House of for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, and Commons is quite correctly facilitating those and helping others. I think the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford them to work from home, to ensure that they have a (Vicky Foxcroft) spoke in the same way. I put it to the good connection and to participate. I hope we will agree Leader of the House that the sooner the review allows to help them participate in a broader range of our extra flexibility, the better. We are not asking to go back activities. to a fully virtual Chamber. (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con): I thank the many Members who contacted my Committee Mr Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful to the Father following our call for evidence, wanting to see exactly of the House for his question and his, I think, generous this change. I am sure that they were very pleased when comments. I will certainly interpret them that way, they saw the news on Twitter last night. I repeat what though they may have been slightly two-edged. It is very my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter important that the House comes to a decision on this, Bottomley) said: this should be a matter for the House and it is a matter for the House how it should be done. and needs a full debate. Can my right hon. Friend confirm There will be conversations in the normal way, as there that these changes will not impact on the work of Select always are, and I hope that it will not be indiscreet of Committees? It is very important that they are able to me to say that I spoke to you, Mr Speaker, on Friday access digital services to carry out their important work. after Thursday’s business questions. The House always comes to its own decision. The Government may propose, Mr Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend is right to raise but it is for the House to dispose, and I am sure that the that point about Select Committees. There is a limit to House will come to its conclusion in due course. the broadcasting resources within the House and what 31 Participation in Debates16 NOVEMBER 2020 Participation in Debates 32

[Mr Rees-Mogg] and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), they can do. That is why it has not been possible to whose UQ it is—have been raising this issue for some extend this to Westminster Hall. Select Committees can time and really it is they,rather than I, who deserve plaudits. continue to meet virtually. I would be nervous to give That said, may I thank the Leader of the House for absolute carte blanche, because if every Select Committee calling me on Saturday to advise me of his intention to wanted to meet at exactly the same time on one particular allow Members who are clinically extremely vulnerable day and the Chamber was also in action, that may to participate in proceedings here in the Chamber? I am stretch the resources. Assuming that Select Committees looking forward to being able to raise important issues arrange their affairs in such a way that a reasonable on behalf of my constituents as and when I can during number of them are sitting at any one time, I do not the rest of my treatment. believe that these proposals will make it harder for I am sorry if I missed it, but could the Leader of the Select Committees to meet. House confirm when the changes will come in? While I My right hon. Friend is right to explain that there is a absolutely recognise his points about the technical challenges balance in terms of the resources there are to ensure the of participation in Westminster Hall, could he please participation of Members in the various activities that reassure the House that he will continue to explore take place. Sometimes it is thought that all that goes on options for participation in the second Chamber? While in Parliament takes place in the Chamber, but of course here, will he join me in thanking the extraordinary that is not the case. Business was not getting through in efforts of the digital and broadcasting teams, who have May and June because of the inability for other aspects done amazing things to allow Members to be here by, as of business to take place that are not necessarily seen, the Prime Minister puts it, the “magic of modern particularly the work in Public Bill Committees and technology”? statutory instrument Committees. Mr Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is enormously gracious Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]: in her thanks to the digital and broadcasting team, who The Leader of the House will know that I am a long-serving not only have managed to introduce this new system Member of Parliament and an active parliamentarian since March, but have had to move offices at the same who so much wants to be back in the Chamber doing point and kept it going seamlessly. It is one of the the job that I have been doing for over 40 years. But can smaller teams within the House service, so I think what I say that, if anything is sub-optimal here, it is the they have managed to do is absolutely phenomenal. Leader of the House? The fact of the matter is: he knows I hope to introduce the motions as soon as possible. it is the Speaker’s view—Mr Speaker, I hope I can quote They are being written, I think, by wise Clerks as I am you on this—that this is not a safe environment for us to speaking. It is important, I think—I hope this answers attend. That is the fact of the matter and that is the my hon. Friend’s question about Westminster Hall—to truth. I would have to say to the Leader of the House recognise that, if we do it quickly, it must be limited. If that my responsibility, my key and prime duty, is to my we do it for the Chamber for the extremely clinically constituents. He is the man who is stopping me serving vulnerable, that can be done quite quickly; if we were to as a full Member of Parliament. Indeed, I would not be try to look at Westminster Hall, that would take able to do my Select Committee if it had not been for, considerably longer because we would need additional not him, but the Speaker and his intercession. The fact resources. But, as I have said before, things are under of the matter is he is sub-optimal—he should resign. review, particularly for those whom the Government are advising not to go into work, and that is the extremely Mr Rees-Mogg rose— clinically vulnerable. So, yes, it will be done quickly and Mr Speaker: Order. Leader of the House, just one we will keep Westminster Hall under review. second. I did not know that was going to be raised. I Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]: Since the think I need to put clarity around what I did say. If Leader of the House deliberately chose to exclude some people are vulnerable, I did say that I do not want MPs from debates, I have been trying to do my work in vulnerable people to be put at risk. Let us clear that up. different ways. However, for example, it has taken up to This is a covid-secure workplace. five months to extract a response to my letters, not just Mr Rees-Mogg: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That on covid issues but on matters that are equally vital to clarification is extremely helpful because the Clerk of my constituents, such as the combustible cladding scandal the House, I think, would be extremely nervous if it and the survival of local football clubs. were being said that this were not a covid-secure workplace. I welcome warmly today’s announcement, particularly The work that has been done to ensure that has been in relation to MPs with cancer and other conditions, absolutely extraordinary, and we ought to thank once but what about the rest of us who are simply heeding again the House authorities, but also the Doorkeepers the Government’s advice in not coming into the House? who have stewarded our Divisions, the security staff I have to say to the Leader of the House that we are not and the cleaning people who have worked incredibly like other key workers, who can be replaced if they hard and who have been here even when we have not cannot attend; MPs have no substitutes. How can he been. The hon. Gentleman has expressed his view very continue to justify deliberately preventing my constituents clearly. It is not one I share. from being properly and thoroughly represented in Parliament? Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) [V]: I am slightly embarrassed by the kind comments about Mr Rees-Mogg: I very much doubt that any of the my question on Thursday because others—my good right hon. Lady’s constituents would say that she does friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham not represent them effectively. She has always been a 33 Participation in Debates16 NOVEMBER 2020 Participation in Debates 34 powerful campaigner and an effective voice of the Opposition days and had no Backbench Business days, Opposition and of the Labour party over many years, both of which have now been restored. The act of holding so I do not think anybody would dream of saying that. the Government to account and, indeed, of getting May I answer the right hon. Lady’s question in parts? legislation through was less easy, and that is why it was First, as relates to correspondence, that has been a decided, by a vote of the House, to return to a more problem that has been raised on the Floor of the House physically present Parliament, especially for debates on a number of occasions. I have taken it up with all and therefore particularly for legislation. members of the Cabinet to emphasise the importance I would say to my right hon. Friend that we are of timely responses to Members—not just to their ensuring that Parliament is working effectively, and we written correspondence but to written questions. I reiterate are going to make, I hope, with the agreement of the the promise that I have made to all hon. and right hon. House, an exception for those who are clinically extremely Members that if anyone has a particular problem with a vulnerable. He does, though, ask a question that is particular Department, my office will take that up for something of a conundrum, because we cannot change them. I have done that for a number of hon. and right the rules until we have voted to change the rules, so the hon. Members from across the House, and it does seem vote to change the rules will be of fundamental importance to get answers. I can only apologise on behalf of the for allowing those who are clinically extremely vulnerable Government that there have been delays in responses to attend and speak in debates. because, to be fair, of the pressures of the pandemic earlier in the process. I am reassured that things are now Mr Speaker: We have a lot to get through, so I ask for getting better, but the right hon. Lady must feel free to speedy questions and answers. That will help us all. raise with me any instances where replies are not being received. Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD): With due respect, I disagree with the Leader of the House. It has been As regards the decision being made today, we are proved that we can vote remotely, thanks to the wonderful following the advice that the Government have laid work of the digital team, and that is what we should down, and that is that the clinically extremely vulnerable return to, but may I ask a question about Westminster should not be going into work but that other people are Hall debates, which seem to be the crux of many of the able to go into work if it is a covid-safe environment. As issues that have been raised? If we cannot bring Westminster this is a covid-safe environment, people are able to Hall debates back because of technical issues, will the come in if they are not clinically extremely vulnerable. Leader of the House please look into how Westminster Shielding as a concept ended in the summer and therefore Hall-style debates were brought back before October by it is not part of the current Government advice. conducting them in Committee Room 5, where there are the technical possibilities? Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]: In his opening remarks, the Leader of the House referred to Mr Rees-Mogg: There is an element of choice, as to the possibility of maximising what was possible.Mr Speaker, what the House wants. We brought back Westminster through your good offices and that of your technical Hall because regular representations were made to me team, we know that a hybrid Parliament is perfectly— that people wanted to have Westminster Hall back. If [Inaudible.] Not only that; it is exercised, for example, the House does not want Westminster Hall, that would at Prime Minister’s Question Time every week. But be a matter for the House, but I would be very surprised hitherto, those of us who are not able to attend have if that were the case. The hon. Lady opened her comments been denied the opportunity to take part in debates. by saying she disagreed with me. Dare I say it, Mr Speaker, My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and but that is very reassuring. She is, after all, a Liberal Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and my—[Inaudible.]— Democrat, and I am always very nervous if a Liberal are both senior members of the Parliamentary Assembly Democrat agrees with me. of the Council of Europe. Throughout the last six months, Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) we have been taking part in plenary sessions, debates and [V]: It has been said in this House that it is the duty of committee hearings perfectly satisfactorily in a hybrid Members to participate physically in debates to show fashion. I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend the people that it is safe to return to work. With England in Leader of the House would suggest that this House is full lockdown and “work from home” a message across not capable of doing something that Europe is capable the UK, is it not the duty of every Member to show that of, so my question to him is simply this. At the last vote, working remotely can be done effectively, or, unlike 200 Members were denied the opportunity to attend, every other Parliament across the length and breadth of speak or vote. This time, following the lead taken by the Europe, is that something that is simply beyond the wit Father of the House, will he make sure that there is a proper of the House? debate and that every Member of Parliament who wishes to do so is enabled to participate and to vote? Mr Rees-Mogg: The advice is absolutely clear that people should work from home if they can do so Mr Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend was momentarily effectively, but this Chamber does not work effectively interrupted, and that is one of the problems with remote when people are not physically present. To reiterate the participation; the quality of the audio is not invariably points I have already made, to ensure that the Government perfect. Although that works during Question Time, it are held to account and that the Government’s legislative is not a good enough way of having a debate, nor did we programme can be proceeded with, we need to be here find when we had the hybrid Parliament that debates of physically,because otherwise both of those cannot happen legislation worked effectively. I would also point out properly. One of them is to the advantage of Opposition that when we had the hybrid Parliament, we were meeting Members, and that is the holding to account. They for only three days a week, and we were very short on should be pleased to have the opportunity to hold the 35 Participation in Debates16 NOVEMBER 2020 Participation in Debates 36

[Mr Rees-Mogg] Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]: I would like to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich Government to account thoroughly, vigorously and and North (Sir ), the Chairman of with full vim, rather than thinking that the Government the Liaison Committee.I am one of those Select Committee should have an easy ride over a virtual setting. I am Chairs who do not feel that we are able to fulfil our rather surprised that they are so nervous about participating function—not as a bauble of Parliament as the Leader in the process of scrutiny. of the House has just suggested—because we are unable On the other hand, from the Government’s point of to attend for medical reasons. I have not been able to view, we wish to ensure that the legislative agenda on participate in a debate since the middle of March and I which we were elected just under a year ago is proceeded do not feel that I am fulfilling my function as a Member with, and that is our democratic right, because we have of Parliament properly. This was brought home to me a mandate to do it. On the one hand, proper scrutiny, only last week, as I am one of the two current MPs who and on the other, a legislative programme. Those require are commissioners of the Commonwealth War Graves us to be here to do that properly. We need to stand with Commission and I was unable to participate in the or, in socialist terms, show solidarity with other key Armistice Day debate on 11 November, despite having workers who are continuing to go into work. [Interruption.] asked for a special dispensation from your office, The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) Mr Speaker, which you were quite properly unable to points to the Lords. I remind her again that they had a give me. vote that failed—a failure of the Lords—which upset Also last week, had it not been for the consequences the business for the next day. We have not had a single of these new restrictions, I would have been introducing failure in this House, thanks to our model speakership. on Friday the only private Member’s Bill that I have ever been fortunate enough to have drawn in the ballot. Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con): I urge my right hon. Friend please to give some urgency May I report to the House through you, Mr Speaker, to his deliberations on introducing this new measure, that the Liaison Committee met last week and discussed which I welcome wholeheartedly, to ensure that by the this matter at some length? Will my right hon. Friend time my private Member’s Bill comes back to this respect how strongly many Chairs of Select Committees House on Friday 15 January, I will be able to deliver it feel that a significant number of them are unable to in person. carry out their constitutional function, because they cannot risk exposing themselves or their families to Mr Rees-Mogg: I completely sympathise with my covid infection? It means that they are unable to speak right hon. Friend. It must be very frustrating not being to their own Committees’ reports during debates, to able to participate in the activities of the House, and I make statements to launch reports by their Committees, hope that the proposals being brought forward to help to lead debates on those reports or to speak on legislation those who are extremely clinically vulnerable will be of that their Committees have scrutinised. Will my right assistance. It is important that this House actively holds hon. Friend please address that urgently? the Government to account and scrutinises them, and that the legislative programme is proceeded with, and that is Mr Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I exactly the balance that the Government are trying to am very concerned and sorry to hear that so many achieve, by ensuring that scrutiny is properly done and members of the Liaison Committee are extremely clinically that legislation is properly debated, and by allowing vulnerable. That is certainly troubling, but I hope that those who have exceptionally difficult circumstances to the steps that are being proposed and will be taken will be able to participate more fully. But it is a balance, and be helpful to them. it has been a balance as to what can or cannot be provided (Strangford) (DUP): I applaud the Leader all the way through. We have had different requests in of the House and also you, Mr Speaker, for the guidance different directions for what the resources should be and leadership that have been given. Does the Leader of devoted to—hence the question raised by the hon. Member the House not agree that engagement in this place is for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) as to whether we should what we are elected to do, and that the proper process close Westminster Hall and use the resources for something should be followed? Does he agree that the proxy voting else. There is always a balance to be struck. scheme, for example, is an essential component of moving forward in a different way in these peculiar times? Can Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab): It has been fascinating he envisage a time-limited way of allowing greater listening to the Leader of the House, and I cannot help engagement during these times? but think that he is not only gaslighting MPs but gaslighting the whole country in his responses.Paragraph 4.7 Mr Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is an absolute of “Erskine May” says that the Leader of the House is model of parliamentary engagement and of the ability “primarily responsible for the arrangement of government business” to stand up for constituents and ensure that they are and represented. He does it with aplomb and vigour. Yes, we … need to ensure that there is as much engagement as “has a general responsibility to safeguard the decencies and to ensure that Business arrangements have regard to what is right possible, and the point I am trying to get across is that and proper in the interests of the House as a whole.” having a functioning, active democratic Chamber is not simply nice to have, like some sort of additional bauble It goes on to state: on the British constitution; it is fundamental to how we “The leadership of the House is not a statutory office, and nor are governed. It is fundamental to how the extraordinary is the Leader of the House formally appointed by the Crown.” laws that have been introduced are scrutinised, and that I think the Leader is somewhat overreaching in his requires almost all of us to be here, but we can make suggestion that he should decide who should take part exceptions for those who are extremely clinically vulnerable. in the debates in this House as a Member of Parliament. 37 Participation in Debates16 NOVEMBER 2020 Participation in Debates 38

The current arrangements are not in the best interests vulnerable by having a very short timeline on this of the House as a whole. I love being in the House of proposal or a separate one from the other existing Commons and I love debating, but we are in a pandemic exceptions to our normal proceedings. at the moment and covid is asymptomatic. This place is full of it, whether we like it or not, and we are putting Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]: I 600 people at risk every time we are here. welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has My Remote Participation in House of Commons finally decided that increased remote participation is Proceedings (Motion) Bill could just be adopted by the possible for some once again. I am sure that it will come Government instead of being debated in January. I urge as no surprise to him, however, that I and many other the Leader of the House to adopt the Bill and meet me colleagues wish he had done this so much sooner, rather and other Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member than shutting us out of numerous important debates. I for West (Geraint Davies), to talk about how hear what he has just said about the timeframe, so will we can have proper participation and ensure that our he confirm that these arrangements will stay in place democracy is safe and that we hold the Government to until we are safely through this pandemic, thereby enabling account. us fully to represent our constituents in this place? Mr Rees-Mogg: Madam Deputy Speaker—I got it Mr Rees-Mogg: I reiterate the point I made earlier: I right this time and actually noticed that there had been am always willing to meet hon. and right hon. Members, a change of Chair—I am grateful to the hon. Lady for in part because of what it says in “Erskine May” about the point that she raises. It is important to have a degree the responsibilities of the Leader of the House, which I of certainty, so I reiterate that it is proposed that the am well aware of. That is why I have made it so clear that measures would be in place until 30 March. I think that I expect Ministers to respond in a reasonably punctual is the right approach to take. I do not want to pre-empt way to Members’ letters and other communications. It the decision that will be made in March, because—who is important that this House is respected by the Executive; knows?—we could be in a very different position by that is absolutely fundamental. then, but I assume that if other virtual participation I am sorry if I gave the impression that I will decide continues at that point, if we are still in the midst of the who speaks in debates. I certainly do not do that; that is pandemic, it would be reasonable to continue with such decided on a daily basis by Mr Speaker. Terms of proposals as are likely to be brought forward in the near reference for any proposed changes would have to be future. decided by a motion that has to be passed by the House. It is a matter for the House to decide, as it will do. The Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Leader of the House does not have, or would want to [V]: With UK productivity at a staggering 22% lower have—certainly I would not want it—the ability to than that of France, Parliament is hardly helping when decide who speaks in debates. That is a matter for the I can vote faster, when enabled, in a byre on a croft in Speaker on a daily basis and otherwise by a motion of the Outer Hebrides than I have ever managed to at the the House. Palace of Westminster. Recently, while chairing the Select Committee on International Trade in 21st century Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]: It is somewhat fashion, I had to suspend so that Members could go ironic that when my right hon. Friend brings forward back to 18th century fashion and vote in a Division in his proposals the only people who will not be allowed to the House of Commons. Those who were interested in participate in the debate are those who are forced to the Japan trade deal watched the Secretary of State for shield. They will therefore not be able to participate in International Trade having to leave for the indignity of the decision making, other than having a proxy vote. such time wasting. Surely,productivity and the involvement There is clearly no reason why Adjournment debates in the democratic process could now be improved by could not be accorded a position in the Chamber in having a sensible system again during the pandemic. We future if we are to have virtual proceedings. I realise my did it before; can we not do it again? The main job of right hon. Friend enjoys, as I do, the cut and thrust of parliamentarians is to vote and to speak. Are those debate in the Chamber and the opportunity to intervene, things not curtailed by the Leader of the House? and clearly we need to make sure that that is still enabled. Will he set out the requirements on Members Mr Rees-Mogg: It is nice to see the hon. Member for of Parliament to provide their reasons for shielding or Na h-Eileanan an Iar back and smiling at us. We missed being forced to be clinically vulnerable? Will he also him greatly in the debate last week on parliamentary consider the fact that the current lockdown in England boundaries. As he was not there, I do not know if he will expire on 2 December? By the time we get around noticed that I proposed that his seat should be made to this motion, it may be that we are out of the lockdown permanently in his honour, as such a fine representative and into a new structure completely. of his good constituents. However, as regards to whether we are in the 18th century or the 21st century, it is Mr Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes a very good important that Members of Parliament have the point about the timeliness, and I am very keen to ensure opportunity to meet Ministers, speak to Ministers, lobby that this motion is brought forward soon so that it can Ministers, speak to each other, lobby each other and be decided by this House soon. He makes the point that raise their complaints. I think we need to be physically things may change again on 3 December. It is my view, present to do that. The hon. Gentleman makes an but it will warrant further discussion in the House, that enormous contribution, normally on a daily basis, to the length of period for this proposal should coincide this House, when he sits in his usual place and lobs in with the duration of the other motions, which all expire little grenades of wit and wisdom that keep Ministers on 30 March. It would be unfair and unreasonable to on their toes and Opposition spokesmen paying attention, create uncertainty for people who are extremely clinically so the sooner he is back here the better. [Interruption.] 39 Participation in Debates16 NOVEMBER 2020 Participation in Debates 40

[Mr Rees-Mogg] extremely vulnerable but who have been told in no uncertain terms by medical professionals to stay at home? I am being heckled by his own Front Benchers. I am not I am a pregnant woman in my third trimester, and the sure they are as keen to have his wit and wisdom as Royal College of Midwives and all clinicians advise that I am. if I contract covid, I am 60% more likely to end up on a ventilator or risk the pre-term birth of my baby. Other (Oldham East and Saddleworth) key workers in their third trimester have been exempted (Lab) [V]: I would like to hold the Leader of the House by employers, so will he consider the same mechanism to account on his misquoting of covid guidance, which for MPs? clearly says that if people cannot work from home, they can go to work—not the other way around. He also said Mr Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes a very important that a fully virtual House would impede the Government’s point, and I would say that it is a matter on which she legislative programme. The Institute for Government should consult her doctors. If they think that the risk is has clearly shown that that was not the case in the spring. such that she is de facto extremely clinically vulnerable, Many right hon. and hon. Friends have made a strong I think that she would be covered by the proposals that case that current proceedings are discriminatory. In line will be introduced. She absolutely right to raise this, and with equality legislation, in particular section 149 of the it is necessary for people to work out with their doctors Equality Act 2010, it is the Government’s duty to whether they are extremely clinically vulnerable. From identify and address the barriers that are contributing what she is saying, the risk sounds to me, although I am to that and to make reasonable adjustments. As such, no expert, to be high, and consultation with her doctors what equality impact assessment have the Government may well put her in that category, but that is a matter for undertaken in relation to restricting the participation in her to take up with her doctors. debates of Members who may not be physically on the parliamentary estate for public health reasons? And (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]: why, if the Lords has a fully virtual system, doesn’t the May I tell the Leader of the House that I would love to Commons? be there—I love the cut and thrust of the Chamber. He may not know that I contracted covid-19 in early March, Mr Rees-Mogg: To answer the last point first, we are and it developed into long covid. Eight months later, on not copying the Lords because the Lords’ system, as I my good days, I struggle only with cognitive brain fog, keep on saying, breaks down and it is really important but on my worst days, it is still sheer exhaustion and that we have votes that actually happen. On the hon. debilitating headaches on top. Thankfully, the good Lady’s other point, it is simply inaccurate to say that the days now outnumber the bad, but I cannot plan which Government’s legislative programme steamed ahead in it is going to be. Virtual participation in questions, UQs, May and June. It did not, because we had no Public Bill statements and Select Committees has been a godsend, Committees. but I have had to miss out on important debates, including on key issues that affect my constituency and, Yes, we could have Second Reading debates, but they indeed, on the subject of long covid. Will he look at that were extraordinarily limited. Legislation always has an again? effect on people’s lives. It is always important. We do not legislate over trivial things. We legislate on things that have an effect on the people we represent, usually Mr Rees-Mogg: I am very sorry to hear that, but I did to remove some liberty that they have previously enjoyed. know that the hon. Gentleman had been suffering from To take that away lightly, after two hours of debate, long covid. I wish him extremely well—it sounds hardly seems to me a proper way to legislate. Not only extraordinarily debilitating and difficult for him. I am did we find that the programme was not advancing with not unsympathetic to the requests that have been made, any speed, but that it was completely clogged up at the but this is all a question of getting the balance right Committee stage. Wewere also not serving our constituents between ensuring that the House has effective debates, properly by not debating fully the issues that were being with legislation introduced in a timely manner and considered. following the guidance that we are giving to the country at large—I reiterate that it applies to people who are As regards the Equality Act, the House authorities extremely clinically vulnerable—as we need to ensure worked tirelessly to respond to the challenge created by that provision is made for those who are told not to covid-19 and put in place measures to protect those who come into work. I wish him extremely well in his recovery, work here and ensure the participation of those who have and I hope that it goes from strength to strength. not been able to attend in person. What we are doing on the remote participation of those who are extremely (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]: I congratulate the clinically vulnerable is a further step to ensure that those Leader of the House on uniting the House almost who cannot come physically, because of health reasons entirely, although in opposition, to what he has said. He outside their control, will be able to do so. That seems makes great play of the fact that the House is a covid-safe to me to be fully in accord with best practice in equalities. environment, and I praise the House for that. What he cannot do is guarantee that my journey from home by (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]: I am tram to Manchester, by train to London and by tube sure that my right hon. Friend and, indeed, the Deputy across London can ever be covid safe. That is the reality Speaker are in no doubt that, if I could do so safely, for those of us who are not London-based. I have the there is no question but that I would be in the Chamber necessary clinical exemption, but I can still not take part participating in business. While I welcome my right fully as a Member of Parliament to defend the rights of hon. Friend’sdecision, will he consider a specific exemption my constituents in Westminster Hall debates. Can the right mechanism for MPs who are not classed as clinically hon. Gentleman explain that to my constituents and place 41 Participation in Debates16 NOVEMBER 2020 Participation in Debates 42 on the record the evidence that says that at the moment Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD): Many of it is not technologically feasible to make that happen in us in this place would not ask the Leader of the House Westminster Hall? for different circumstances from those we represent. We are actually asking for the same consideration. Many of Mr Rees-Mogg: The issue around Westminster Hall us come from constituencies quite some distance from is what I am told by the House authorities, which seems London, from areas where there is no lockdown at the to me to be a reasonably authoritative position. It is a moment, and the public have been asked not to travel to question of resources. As I said earlier, the broadcasting areas where there is a lockdown. Many of us doing team is relatively small and has been working under a that—despite being asked not to do so—also have great deal of pressure to try to deliver not just the underlying health conditions and therefore every day Chamber but Select Committees performing remotely. have to decide what comes first: the risk to our health or Those resources are not unlimited and have to be shared representing our constituents. Most of us choose in a way that gives the greatest satisfaction to the most representing our constituents. I do not think that is a people. Westminster Hall cannot be broadcast currently decision we should be asked to make, because we would with remote participation unless resources were to be not ask any of our constituents to put their health at taken from somewhere else. That is a question ultimately risk. I ask him to take that into account. for the House if it wanted to lessen, perhaps, the facilities available to Select Committees or take resources from Mr Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the somewhere else. That is what I have been told by the point she makes and for her attendance at the House. I House authorities, and I am sure that what they have recognise that the issues she raises are problems for right told me is accurate. hon. and hon. Members. Where I disagree with her is in the view that our constituents are not also having to do Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): After nearly that. Our constituents who are key workers do have to an hour of being battered from all sides, it is about time travel and go to different places, and that is why there that someone supported the Leader of the House and are not travel restrictions on key workers. That is of did the unpopular thing of defending the Government. fundamental importance. That is why it is right that she May I say that I welcome what he said and the moderate is here and why it is important that other Members are way in which he said it? While I am happy with extending here. As I said earlier, democracy is not a nice-to-have this provision to people who are clinically vulnerable, bauble; it is essential to the governance of the country. may I urge him not to bow to pressure and extend virtual debating to everybody, giving everyone carte blanche? Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]: I am astonished We are in danger in this country of creating two worlds: that the Leader of the House continues to insist that an Aldous Huxley “Brave New World” where middle anyone who is a designated key worker is having to class people can sit in the comfort of their own homes work normally. That is simply not the case. Key worker and do their jobs and ordinary people are forced out status has nothing to do with whether someone has to into the workplace. Our job is to set an example and be attend work. It was invented at the start of the pandemic here. “Parliament” comes from the French “parler”, and to provide prioritisation for key workers who needed, it does not mean talking at people but talking with for example, childcare arrangements so that someone people. There is a practical point: if we are having a debate, could look after their children while they went to work. we do not want to be like the Council of Europe with its The Office for National Statistics estimated last year dead debates where people read out speeches; we want that about one third of the workforce would be categorised to have people here and intervening on each other. as key workers. If the Leader of the House is suggesting that one Mr Rees-Mogg: I am naturally grateful to my right third of the workforce should be going about their hon. Friend. He is right that we do need to be here. I normal day-to-day work as if nothing had happened, share his concern that we think we should do things that is surely a recipe for disaster. He does not understand differently from other people.That is whyI have consistently what “key worker” means; he does not understand the tried to set out a case where the House behaves in the fact that Select Committees have already seen their way that other key workers are. meeting schedules torn to pieces by the restrictions on Yes, I know right hon. and hon. Members have to broadcast capacity within the House; he does not even travel from their constituencies to get here, but other understand the statement from his own Prime Minister, key workers have to take journeys, too—we are not because the Prime Minister said that anyone over 60 should alone in that. We are not alone in needing to go to our minimise contact with others. It would take out about workplace because it does not operate properly without 140 Members of the House of Commons, including me, us. We should, in fact, be proud of the fact that we are if we followed the Prime Minister’s advice. key workers and, alongside other key workers, doing May I suggest to the Leader of the House that he our duty to make democracy function. goes and finds out the facts of what he is talking about My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about and then come to the House with a proposal that allows there being two groups of people, which we should bear anybody who has a legitimate reason for not being able in mind. As I said, we should be standing shoulder to to travel to the House to play a full part in the proceedings shoulder with our constituents, recognising that they by video call—by remote means—in exactly the same have to face these difficulties as well. We are not, in this way as the national Parliaments in Scotland and elsewhere sense, unique. As we can help those who are extremely are able to work perfectly satisfactorily? clinically vulnerable, it is right that we should do so. However, that will be a limited change, because the Mr Rees-Mogg: If anyone looks around the Chamber, resources and the ability to have proper debate are they will see that we are not working normally. It is not limiting factors in what can or should be done. a question of working normally: we see the markings 43 Participation in Debates16 NOVEMBER 2020 Participation in Debates 44

[Mr Rees-Mogg] Mr Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman wants to change things, and then when they are changed he does not like on the floor, the tape, the stickers, the “no entry” signs them. That makes him very difficult to satisfy. where prayer cards normally go. The House is not working normally; Perspex screens have been put up. (Harlow) (Con) [V]: I strongly welcome This has been done to make it a covid-secure workplace. the move that my right hon. Friend has made today. I I do not think there is any question that all key workers think it will make a significant difference. I do agree are working normally, but it is important that they are with him that Parliament should definitely be open and at work, and most need to be at work, as we do. That is that those MPs who can attend should do so, because it the point that I would make, but is it normal here? No, sets an example to the nation. I know him to be a kind and the issues the hon. Gentleman raises about Select and thoughtful man, so when he considers these issues Committees are absolutely right. Of course it has been in future, may I ask him to ensure that the Government difficult to make Select Committees run in the same do not give the impression, however unwittingly, way as they did before the pandemic. The issues have that sometimes they care just about the survival of the applied in Westminster Hall, too, where the numbers fittest and that we are not just supporting Darwinian who can attend are limited, and Members are not able Übermenschen MPs in Parliament? to intervene in the way they normally would. That is true; we are not working normally, but we are continuing Mr Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend is absolutely to work. right. He puts things so well. He is a most effective campaigner in the very many fields in which he campaigns, Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) and I absolutely share his view. The Government are (Con) [V]: Equality is not a “nice to have”; it is essential. not trying to be macho about this; they are just trying to Pregnancy and maternity, disability and age are all ensure that the Government themselves are held to protected characteristics by law. Employers in the NHS account properly, but that the legislative programme is and in education have made reasonable adjustments so also proceeded with. I agree with him entirely that that pregnant workers can work in those environments, Parliament needs to be present, and I also agree with and some have been enabled to work from home. Why him that we are showing an example to the nation as a will the Leader of the House not do the same for the whole. May I add that he often personally shows a fine key workers in Parliament? example to the nation?

Mr Rees-Mogg: I hope Hansard got a bit more of that Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]: I fundamentally than I did, but I think I got the fundamental point. We disagree with the Leader of the House: the remote have made the right provisions to ensure that people voting system in the House of Lords has been working, can come to the House and can participate in our and is working, effectively. However, does he recognise debates, and this is a further step on this road. Therefore, how insulting he was when he implied that shielding I fundamentally disagree with my right hon. Friend. Members were shirking their duty by not being able to come to Parliament, and will he apologise? Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I have always been a bit suspicious about the concept of normality; it has Mr Rees-Mogg: What I have said is that those who always seemed to me to be a moving feast. One of the are clinically extremely vulnerable will be able to have great strengths of British history and the constitution is remote participation, I hope, subject to a motion before that tradition always adapts to reality. The Leader of this House. There is no question of accusing those the House will remember the 15th century.In 1439, when people of shirking; that would be quite wrong and I pestilence was abroad, the House of Commons and the have never done so. House of Lords jointly petitioned the King to say, “Could we dispense with the business of kissing the Mr (Forest of Dean) (Con): I welcome King as a sign of our liege duty?”; and the King agreed. what the Leader of the House has brought forward, but Is not the truth of the matter that in every generation, I have listened carefully to what has been said and I when there are classic moments like this one of national really do not understand whywe cannot extend participation crisis, we have to abandon our hidebound traditions? in debates. It might have to be limited; I accept that We have to adapt to the moment, and surely to God it interventions might be difficult. My concern is this: I do must be invidious to be asking individual people to not think he said whether those who have family members declare whether they are clinically extremely vulnerable. who are clinically extremely vulnerable would be covered As it happens, I have had six letters, I think, now to say by this provision, and that is essential. I have a real that I am; my doctor says that I am not. I am quite problem, but, frankly, I am not convinced that making happy to talk about it, but I do not think individual all of this public is a very good idea. I do not think that Members should have to declare that. compelling people to disclose quite private medical Why can we not just trust Members, and say that information widely is something that we should be in every single Member is treated equally in this House the business of doing. I would prefer it if it were left to and has an equal right to debate until the end of this Members.Those who are able to participate in interrogative parliamentary Session, and then we can revise what we proceedings virtually ought to be able to do so in want to do in the future? Why on earth is it going to be debates, and I urge him to reflect on that further before right that if the Government table a motion next week— he brings the motions before the House. perhaps at the end of this week—the Government Chief Whip will have more than 200 votes in his pocket to be Mr Rees-Mogg: The advice of the Government broadly, able to dispose of? Would it not make much more sense not specifically to this House, is that it is extremely for us, at least on this issue, to have voting online so that clinically vulnerable people who should not be going everybody can cast their own vote? into work, not members of families where a member of 45 Participation in Debates16 NOVEMBER 2020 Participation in Debates 46 that family is extremely clinically vulnerable. It is important Madam Deputy Speaker: I now call . that we follow the same advice that we are giving to our constituents. I said earlier that last week I had to write Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) [V]: May I to a constituent saying exactly that, and that I do not recommend that the Leader of the House read the gov.uk feel it is right for this House to take a different approach guidance? The guidance is different this time from last from the one that we are expecting our constituents to time: it is just really clear that people need to stay at home take. and only go to work if they cannot work from home. As regards people revealing their medical details, We can work from home, and to show an example to the nobody will be expected to go into any detail as to what rest of the country, we should do that. I have been their illness is. They will merely need to be extremely self-isolating for the last nine days, because the covid clinically vulnerable, and it will be a choice for those app told me to. I really wanted to raise a campaign that people. I think the difficulty with allowing anybody I and my constituents were doing to try and honour the who can participate remotely to participate in all aspects 34 people in Croydon who have lost their lives in remotely is that we would then not have debates; we conflict since the second world war. I had wanted to would have a series of monologues and we would have raise that in the Armistice Day debate and I was not the risk of the system going down. We have already had able to do so. Given that the technology is available and a couple of people on calls this afternoon whose words that thousands of key workers, including my husband, were muffled or distorted. The technology is not perfect. are working perfectly well from home, why did the The efforts of the broadcasting team are absolutely Leader of the House think it was right to exclude me admirable, but the technology does not work perfectly from that debate last week? and people being here physically is important for proper Mr Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady and I simply disagree democratic accountability. on whether the House can operate effectively remotely. (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]: We have the experience to go on of May and June when After my recent treatment for breast cancer,my oncologist it did not work effectively. The legislative programme advised me to reduce my contacts as much as I can was bunged up and we lost all the private Members’ during the pandemic. That is the reason I have not been days—all the Fridays were cancelled—Westminster Hall travelling to the House. That does not make me clinically was closed, and we had limited availability for Opposition extremely vulnerable, so I would fall outside the changes days and no availability for Backbench business. suggested by the Leader of the House unless they are The House has to carry on a wide range of activities, widened. I am glad we are discussing the extension of not just in the Chamber but in Committee Rooms. No remote participation, but the plan by the Leader of the Public Bill Committees or statutory instrument Committees House to restrict it to Members who are clinically took place. We need to get legislation through, both extremely vulnerable is just wrong. With the right support, because of the deadline of 31 December, which is an Members can do their job remotely, but we have been important one, and because we have to legislate on denied that. I call on the Leader of the House to do the covid. That is of course in addition to the democratic right thing and confirm that all MPs who are not able to obligation to deliver on the manifesto commitments travel to Westminster safely for a health reason or a that were made in the election last year. With all these reason related to the pandemic can participate remotely things, I think it is unquestionable that we need to be here physically to do it properly. Mr Rees-Mogg: I begin by wishing the hon. Lady well in her recovery. Mrs (Meon Valley) (Con): If we are I am sure the whole House would like me to do that. to have some Members attending virtually, which I agree with, can we lengthen the debates on important Valerie Vaz indicated assent. issues? For instance, last week’s Remembrance Day debate was only three hours, but 59 people had put in to Mr Rees-Mogg: I doubt the hon. Lady can see, but speak and only 28 Back Benchers caught the Speaker’s the shadow Leader of the House is nodding. I know eye. Personally, I have put in for four debates and not everyone here wishes her well. been called in each one, even though I have spoken only As I said earlier, this is a balance between ensuring seven times this year. Could we extend the debates so that parliamentary business is carried out properly and that everybody can contribute, as well as the people allowing those who are extremely clinically vulnerable having to self-isolate at home? to be able to participate. That will not be perfect in terms of debate—they will not be able to take interventions, Mr Rees-Mogg: One issue with which I am not the nor will they be able to intervene. It is hard to see how first Leader of the House to wrestle is that Members that could function effectively. The greater the numbers want a clear time for the ending of business but also the who were involved, the harder it would be to make the ability to speak in debates. Trying to balance the two is system work effectively. I think we have the balance extraordinarily difficult. I completely understand what about right, although I absolutely understand that it my hon. Friend is saying and am very sympathetic to it. will be difficult for some right hon. and hon. Members. I must confess that I was pleasantly surprised by how many people put in for the Armistice Day debate; when Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton): I we discussed it as a possible subject for debate, we were call . not at all certain of how many people would want to speak in it. When a debate is brought forward and Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): Thank you, Madam attracts great interest, there is some feeling that we are Deputy Speaker. The point I was going to make has getting the order of business right. We will know for been repeatedly made by hon. and right hon. Members, next year that there is a considerable desire to speak in so I will withdraw my question. that debate. 47 Participation in Debates16 NOVEMBER 2020 Participation in Debates 48

[Mr Rees-Mogg] facilitate if possible—while also recognising that there is a Government agenda to be worked through and the My hon. Friend’s general point is a very valid one: job of holding the Government to account. My right how we structure business to allow people to make the hon. Friend—my hon. Friend; I dare not promote him contributions that they want to make is fundamental. I quite so quickly—has managed to say in one sentence am afraid that, perhaps rather feebly, I suggest that she what I think I have been saying over the past hour and a contacts the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, half. Perhaps he should be Leader of the House. my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), because it is a subject that Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op): This ought to be of interest to that Committee. may be deemed a covid-secure environment, but every day I am here I witness breaches of the “hands, face, Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): The Leader of the House space” criteria set out by Her Majesty’s Government, so keeps quoting the Government guidance, so while he someone who is clinically vulnerable is at risk and has been answering questions I have looked it up. Last therefore this is not secure. Secondly, may I say that it is updated on 14 November, the guidance says, under the completely reprehensible that the Leader of the House heading “Going to work”: discussed the clinical diagnosis of a Member of this “To help contain the virus, everyone who can work effectively House from the Dispatch Box and that calling on from home should do so.” Members to declare that they are clinically extremely The only person in this Chamber who is standing in the vulnerable is also reprehensible? I have two suggestions way of Members of Parliament effectively doing their for him. The first, on equality, is that he ask the Equality jobs from home is the Leader of the House. He has got and Human Rights Commission to carry out an himself into a ridiculous position because he has dug investigation into the discrimination that is occurring as himself in by insisting that people attend this Chamber, a result of his practices. Secondly, I ask for a short but that is a ridiculous approach during this crisis and independent commission to see what is possible with he should change his mind. regard to making the whole of Parliament virtual for those who require it. Mr Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman might have been well off listening to my hon. Friend the Member Mr Rees-Mogg: I am concerned to hear the hon. for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who has left his place Lady say that this is not a covid-secure workplace. If we but said that he had already heard the question asked look around, we see the precautions that have been several times so offered to withdraw it. I am more than taken: the advice given to people to wear masks, which happy to answer the same question once again, which is most people are doing as they walk about the Palace of to say that we do need to come here to do our job Westminster; the gaps that have been placed; the covid- properly and that is the fundamental point. That is security of this Chamber; the lack of spaces within this what the Government guidelines exist for: if people Chamber, which is problematic for many Members, cannot work from home effectively, they need to come who regret the fact that they are not able to attend into work. We are in that category. I do not know, debates and that we have only about 50 people in the Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you would like me to Chamber, rather than the 400 or whatever the precise set out the reasons why, going back through April, May number is that we can normally contain; the changes and June—the absence of Westminster Hall, the loss of that have been made to the Tea Room, which are not Fridays for private Members’ Bills, the limitations on enormously popular with all Members, to ensure that the work that can be done and the slowness of legislation it, too, is a covid-secure workspace; and the encouragement getting through—but I will happily repeat myself if that of people, which has been continual since the beginning is your command. of this pandemic, to wash their hands. I must confess that I would be very surprised if right hon. and hon. Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con): May I take this Members are not washing their hands regularly, and no opportunity to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, doubt she will encourage them when she sees them and the staff for helping to provide a covid-secure failing to do so. I am surprised by what she says and workplace in the House? We must not lose sight of that think that the work done by the House of Commons among this debate about all the different interests. I authorities to ensure that this is a covid-secure workplace welcome what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the has been most impressive. As regards the equalities House is doing and this announcement, and in particular issue, we are doing exactly what she would want to see the compassion that is evident in what he has said and done in ensuring that those people who have illnesses the flexibility he has shown in trying to address some are able to participate in our proceedings. of the concerns expressed. It occurs to me that there are competing interests here. Perhaps my right hon. Friend James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con): I welcome this could confirm that, given that we cannot find a perfect urgent question and the prospect of the clinically extremely model of what has gone before and what we have had vulnerable being able to participate remotely in this before, it is his difficult—even unenviable—task to find place, particularly as a temporary and expedient measure. a point of balance at that very difficult place that takes As a wider point, may I ask the Leader of the House for into consideration the constraints of time, technology assurance that the House authorities are working up a and the many Members who want to make their points plan for how this Chamber returns to normal and in debate? when?

Mr Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend puts it absolutely Mr Rees-Mogg: That will be a happy day, a day of perfectly: this is all a question of balance and trying to jubilee and song, and I hope we do not have to wait ensure that Members can participate—particularly those until the platinum jubilee before it happens. But it will with difficult circumstances, whom everybody wants to happen partly automatically, because the motions will 49 Participation in Debates16 NOVEMBER 2020 Participation in Debates 50 one day expire. Of course I am enormously keen to get had put forward Members for either hybrid or physical back to normal, when it is reasonable to do so, and in Bill Committees. The Leader of the House knows that. that we will be following the rest of the country. The This is not about interventions in this House; it is fact that we are able to do as much as we can do should about the right of Members to take part in a debate. make us proud of our democracy. We have shown that The Leader of the House knows that it was a simple democracy is essential and it is being carried out, and it change of Standing Orders to allow that those who take is working in the interests of the nation. People are here part in a Back-Bench or Opposition day debate in a and they are arguing over the contentious issues, and hybrid system would accept not having interventions this is so fundamental, but it is slightly sotto voce while Members in the Chamber could. He knows he is compared with the full-blooded call we have for the not correct in what he is saying. This is deeply unfair to interests of our constituents when the Chamber is packed, those Members. It is about time he acknowledged his the Prime Minister is at the Dispatch Box and that roar fundamental duty as Leader of the House to represent goes up, when the real pressure is on, to ensure that, on all Members of this House to the Government. behalf of the British people, we hold Her Majesty’s Government to account. Mr Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman stands up and says that what I am saying is something that he does not Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]: believe. At some point he made a little comment about On 2 November, the Leader of the House suggested the enormous enthusiasm with which the official Opposition that MPs such as myself, who are unable to attend the are trying to help Her Majesty’s Government to get House, are shirking their duty,but it is he who has excluded their business through. I say to him: pot and kettle. me from important legislative debates. I welcome the fact that he will now reconsider, but he keeps referring (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con): I thank to the “extremely clinically vulnerable” and yet says that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay this will not include MPs in the shielding category. So (Mr Baron) for his question. I put on record my sympathy may I ask him: exactly who will decide which MPs are with his circumstances and indeed the case he is making. accorded the right to speak and will he clarify what However, does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the medical qualifications they will hold? House agree—I feel this quite keenly as a new Member— that Parliament should be an assembly, and not just for Mr Rees-Mogg: It is not for me to determine the the quality of scrutiny and deliberation but because of medical advice that is received by Members of Parliament, the learning from each other that takes place here? Does but if they are told by their doctors that they are extremely he therefore agree that those who can assemble in a clinically vulnerable, they will be extremely clinically covid-secure way should do so? vulnerable; I am sure we can trust doctors to know which of their patients are extremely clinically vulnerable Mr Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. or not. We ought to be assembling because we are not, as Edmund Burke put it, ambassadors representing countries (Dudley North) (Con) [V]: I know the —individual areas that are not as one—but representatives Leader of the House will do everything he can to make sent to a single Parliament where we come together to virtual access to Parliament as widespread as possible look at the overall interests of the country at large. That for those needing to work remotely, but does he agree needs people to come together and talk to each other, that maintaining a personal presence in Parliament is not just lecture each other remotely, which is clearly not key in delivering Parliament’s work and key in setting a satisfactory way to run a Parliament. He is right: we an example to all those we are asking to carry on need to come together. That is why we do come together working? and why we must come together.

Mr Rees-Mogg: I am in great agreement with my hon. Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) Friend. It is important that we keep working here, and I (Ind): The Government, I presume, will soon be outlining would encourage those who can to come in. Indeed, I a ratification process for any deal that they sign with the would go further and say that they have a duty to come. EU. In all probability, these will be the most important deliberations we will have here in this Parliament. Given Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab): I am sure the Leader that, is it not his responsibility as Leader of the House of the House would agree that it is not appropriate, or to ensure that all Members of this House can take part indeed proper, for him to announce these types of in debates and votes no matter what their circumstances? changes on Twitter, so will he first apologise for that, given that, as great champion of this House, he should Mr Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman have made the statement here and not announced it on for his typically reasonable and helpful question. Obviously, Twitter on Saturday? I also know that he will think that if there were to be an agreement with the European it is not appropriate to suggest in a tweet that this is a Union and votes and debates on it, that would be a capacity issue within the House service. That simply is matter of interest to the whole House. I feel that what is not correct. These things have been in place with increased being proposed and will come forward in a motion will capacity since May of this year, and he knows that. allow that to happen. All Members are currently able to On Bill Committees, I cannot believe that we are have a proxy vote, and therefore their vote will be back to the same debate of April and May. The Leader recorded. It is very important to note that, although the of the House knows, on the record, that it is not correct proxy vote may be in the hands of Whips, individual to say that there was a blockage of Bill Committees. Members are absolutely entitled either to give it to Labour Members had been put forward and there had somebody else or to ask the Whip to vote in a different been trials for hybrid proceedings. The official Opposition way from the way the Whip wants them to vote. It is not 51 Participation in Debates16 NOVEMBER 2020 Participation in Debates 52

[Mr Rees-Mogg] together to express their views, with the enormous contribution made by SNP Members who dutifully a vote that is handed over for good, and that is fundamental. come to Westminster to inform and contribute to our The individual right of a Member to direct his or her debates and hold the Government to account. They are vote is maintained, and these proposals will allow those dutiful public servants—key workers—doing their bit who are clinically extremely vulnerable to participate in for the United Kingdom, and I thank the hon. Gentleman debates remotely. I hope that there will be an outbreak warmly for his service to the UK. of union between the Conservative party and , though we may disagree about the status of our nation. (Newbury) (Con): I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement about the extended rights (Amber Valley) (Con): Does the Leader of participation for the clinically extremely vulnerable. of the House accept that he has probably not commanded The fact remains that there is a category of Member of the support of the entire House for the Government’s Parliament who is effectively excluded from participating approach? Will he therefore allow the House to amend but who is not clinically extremely vulnerable, and that any motion he tables, so that we can take the full view of is pregnant women. I dovetail this question with the the House on how its proceedings should be governed one put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland during this crisis? and Melton (Alicia Kearns). The Health Secretary has confirmed that pregnancy does not leave someone clinically Mr Rees-Mogg: I mistakenly looked at the screen and extremely vulnerable. The reason for their exclusion is thought it had gone blank, but may I say how nice it is compliance with the Management of Health and Safety to see my hon. Friend here physically? He and I were at Work Regulations 1999. If my right hon. Friend was great troopers together on the Back Benches for many satisfied that there were MPs who were excluded and years, and I am glad to see that he continues to hold the could not participate but did not meet the clinically Government to account. The Government will bring extremely vulnerable criteria, would he consider extending forward a motion. I will announce the schedule of the right to participate in debates to that category? business on Thursday, although if I keep going at this rate, I may still be speaking on Thursday morning. Mr Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Perhaps it would be helpful for me to explain why DrewHendry(Inverness,Nairn,BadenochandStrathspey) the view is that this should cover the clinically extremely (SNP) [V]: The Leader of the House said that, as key vulnerable, which is very straightforward. That is the workers, every Member is in the same position. During group that is currently advised by the Government not this pandemic, I have had to drive over 10 hours on to go to work. If the Government were to advise other several occasions to attend Westminster, and I am not specific groups not to go to work, of course it would be the furthest away. Not everybody can do that. The right to consider whether they ought to be added to the lockdown in England has meant that transport options list. have practically stopped in many constituencies for those I must add one caveat, and that is on the overall who are far from the easy travelling distance to Westminster numbers. To ensure that we still have proper debate and that he enjoys.For example, only one flight leaves Inverness a functioning Parliament, the numbers need to be limited. today, and that is to Stornoway. How does that sit with That is part of the balance that I, as Leader of the every Member being in the same position? House, and others are seeking to achieve, to ensure that we can maintain our business—both the legislative agenda Mr Rees-Mogg: The distance between Inverness and and being held to account—but also facilitate people in Westminster has not changed during the course of the particular conditions. I am not unsympathetic to anybody pandemic, as far as I am aware; I am unaware of a great in a difficult situation, but we need to follow what the movement of the tectonic plates. I thank the hon. Government are suggesting to see which categories may Gentleman for his commitment to Parliament in wanting be included. So far, the category is the clinically extremely to come here and the importance of a Union Parliament vulnerable, but I am not as much of a stick-in-the-mud welcoming MPs from across the country, who come as some people might think. 53 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Points of Order 54

Points of Order Madam Deputy Speaker: Right. As I am sure the hon. Lady knows,if anyincomplete or unintentionally inaccurate 5.20 pm information were given by a Minister to a Select Committee, I would expect the Committee to be informed or to Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab): On a point of pursue the matter. The hon. Lady has placed her concerns order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. On on the record. I am sure that the Treasury Bench and Tuesday 21 July, during an evidence session of the the Leader of the House have heard what she has had to Science and Technology Committee, I asked the Secretary say and will feed it back, in case any corrections need to of State for Health and Social Care about the role of be made. Topham Guerin Ltd, which was given a £3 million contract by the Government to work on their comms strategy. (Newport West) (Lab): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am seeking your advice on I asked the Secretary of State whether he could how I can best correct the record following my question outline what part of the Government’s strategy Topham to the Prime Minister on Wednesday 4 November. Guerin was responsible for. He replied “No.” I then probed further, asking whether he said that because he During my question, I said that the covid contact did not know. He said: tracing system cost £32 a head in Wales and £1,700 in England. The figure in England is actually £170, so I “It was not a Department of Health responsibility.” am concerned that I may have inadvertently misled The Byline Times and the Good Law Project have Parliament. The basic premise of my question is unaltered, been investigating contracts made by the Government, as the contact tracing system is more cost effective and and I established via official records of ministerial efficient in Wales, which uses local government and meetings that on 26 May, almost two months prior to health board staff rather than anonymous callers from my question, a telephone call had taken place between a a remote private company. That said, I ask your advice Health Minister and Topham Guerin Ltd to discuss on how I can best set the record straight. “test and trace marketing”. Madam Deputy Speaker, Ministers must be honest Madam Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. and transparent, especially when giving evidence to a Lady for giving me notice that she wished to raise this House of Commons Committee. By omitting that vital matter. She has ingeniously used her point of order to information, I fear that the Secretary of State may have set the record straight, and I am sure that the House is inadvertently misled me and the Committee. Can you very grateful to her for doing that so promptly. advise on how I could compel the Secretary of State to be clear and confirm the correct information? The House will now suspend for three minutes to allow for the safe exit and entry of right hon. and hon. Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton): I Members. am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and 5.23 pm for giving me notice of it; I presume that she also gave notice to the Secretary of State. Sitting suspended. Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, Dawn Butler indicated assent. 4 June). 55 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 56

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision— Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill (a) about the form and content of a notice given under Committee subsection (1), or (b) about the arrangements that the employer is required New Clause 1 to make.

PENSIONS GUIDANCE (4) The Secretary of State may make regulations to set criteria “The Secretary of State must write to members or survivors of by which a pension provider may be approved for the purposes of pension schemes five years prior to the age of becoming eligible subsection (2). to access their benefits, to state a scheduled date and time for a (5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory pensions guidance appointment, or the option to reschedule or instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument defer this appointment; and write annually until a pensions has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House guidance appointment has been taken, or the member’s desire to of Parliament.” opt out has been confirmed.”—(Stephen Timms.) New clause 4—Employer debt: trustees’ discretion— This new clause would ensure members or survivors of pension schemes receive an impartial pensions guidance appointment prior “(1) The following changes are made to the Occupational to the point when they become eligible to access their pension Pension Schemes (Employer Debt) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/678). benefits, with an appointment booked each year until such time that (2) In regulation 2, in the definition of “scheme apportionment the member has received impartial guidance. arrangement”— Brought up, and read the First time. (a) in sub-paragraph (f)(ii), after “apply”, insert “but not 5.26 pm if the circumstances in paragraph (h) apply”; Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab): I beg to move, (b) at end insert— That the clause be read a Second time. “(h) the consent of the remaining employer or employers Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton): shall not be required under (f)(ii) above where all of With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: the following conditions apply— New clause 2—Pensions Advisory Commission— (i) the departing employer’s debt was treated as becoming due prior to the coming into force of “(1) The Pensions Regulator shall establish a committee to be this provision; and known as the Pensions Advisory Commission. (2) The Commission shall consist of— (ii) the departing employer’s debt was less than 0.5% of the scheme’s overall liabilities, as estimated by the (a) members of the Regulator as provided under section trustees or managers on advice of the scheme actuary, 2(1) of the Pensions Act 2004, and as if the whole scheme had been winding-up at the (b) five other persons appointed by Her Majesty on the time the debt was treated as becoming due; and recommendation of the Secretary of State. (iii) the employer in question was operating as an (3) A person appointed under subsection (2)(b) shall exercise unincorporated business during his participation only functions in pursuance of the duties in subsections (5) in the scheme; and and (6). (4) The Commission shall be chaired by a person appointed (iv) the trustees or managers consider that, in the under subsection (2)(b). context of the scheme overall, taking into account factors such as the scheme’s assets, liabilities and (5) It shall be the duty of the Pensions Advisory Commission the trustees’ or managers’ most recent assessment to submit to the Secretary of State each calendar year, beginning of the overall employer covenant, there would be with the year 2022, a report setting out the Commission’s views no material benefit to the scheme and its members on— in seeking recovery of the employer’s liability share (a) the impact of provisions in Parts 1, 2 and 4 of this Act from the departing employer.” on— (3) In regulation 9, after paragraph (14B), insert the following (i) persons in different parts and regions of the United new paragraph— Kingdom, (ii) equal treatment of men and women in access to “(14C) Condition L is that a debt was treated as becoming due pension provision, and from him under section 75 of the 1995 Act but is excluded under (iii) persons with a protected characteristic under this Condition because— section 4 of the Equality Act 2010; and (a) the employer’s debt was treated as becoming due prior (b) the effectiveness of the powers in Parts 1 to 3 of this to this Condition coming into force; and Act in enabling the Pensions Regulator to achieve its objectives under section 5 of the Pensions Act 2004. (b) the employer’s debt was less than 0.5% of the scheme’s overall liabilities, as estimated by the trustees or managers (6) It shall also be the duty of the Commission to report to the on advice of the scheme actuary, as if the whole Secretary of State by 31 October 2021 its views on when commercial scheme had been winding-up at the time the debt was operators should be able to enter the market for provision of a treated as becoming due; and pensions dashboard service. (c) the employer in question was operating as an (7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of unincorporated business during his participation in every report received from the Commission under this section.” the scheme; and New clause 3—Pension accounts— (d) at or before the applicable time, the trustees or managers “(1) A jobholder to whom section 3 of the Pensions Act 2008 have made a determination not to pursue the debt on applies may by notice require an employer to arrange for the the grounds that, in the context of the scheme overall, jobholder to receive into a pension account any contribution taking into account factors such as the scheme’s assets, which would otherwise be made by the employer into an liabilities and the trustees’ or managers’ most recent automatic enrolment scheme. assessment of the overall employer covenant, seeking (2) A contribution by a jobholder or by their employer into the recovery represented a disproportionate cost to the jobholder’s pension account shall be invested in a pension scheme and would be of no material benefit to the scheme offered by an approved pension provider. scheme overall.”” 57 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 58

This new clause would enable pension scheme trustees to exercise This amendment would require that specially trained advisers and discretion not to pursue employer debt following an employer’s exit guidance are made available to people in vulnerable circumstances from a pension scheme where such debt is below a de minimis and would provide an indicative list of what vulnerable circumstances threshold. This aims to support unincorporated employers who are should include. now retired for business and for whom the current regulation allows Amendment 10, page 105, line 20, at end insert— no easements. “(6A) A requirement under subsection (6)(d) may require the New clause 5—Employer debt: deferred debt provider of a pensions dashboard service to communicate to an arrangement— individual using the dashboard the difference between— “(1) The following changes are made to the Occupational (a) provision of information, Pension Schemes (Employer Debt) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/678). (b) provision of guidance, and (c) provision of advice.” (2) In regulation 6F— This amendment would require the provider of a pensions dashboard (a) in paragraph (1), leave out “A” and insert “Subject to service to ensure that users are made aware of the differences the provisions of paragraph (8) below, a”; between “information”, “guidance” and “advice”. (b) at end insert— Amendment 11, in clause 119, page 108, line 18, after “(8) In relation to a frozen scheme, the trustees or “scheme,” insert— managers of the scheme may agree to a deferred debt arrangement where the employment-cessation “(iva) the total cost of charges incurred for the administration event occurred at a time prior to the scheme of the scheme”. becoming a frozen scheme, providing the conditions This amendment would add information about the total cost of of paragraph (3) are met at the time the deferred charges incurred for the administration and management of debt arrangement is entered into.”” occupational pension schemes to the list of information displayed on the dashboard. This new clause would permit employers in a pension scheme closed to future accrual to apply for a deferred debt arrangement, providing Amendment 13, in clause 121, page 112, line 42, after they meet the other statutory tests. This aims to support employers “scheme,” insert— who are still trading but were not able to use the existing deferred “(iva) the total cost of charges incurred for the debt easement. administration of the scheme”. New clause 6—Regulation of pension superfunds— This amendment would add information about the total cost of “(1) The Secretary of State shall publish a statement on charges incurred for the administration and management of proposals for primary legislation in relation to a duty on the personal and stakeholder pension schemes to the list of information Pensions Regulator to regulate pension superfunds. displayed on the dashboard. (2) For the purposes of this section, a pension superfund is a Amendment 8, in clause 122, page 116, line 37, at end defined benefit pension scheme that allows for the severance of insert— an employer’s liability towards a defined benefit scheme and one “(2A) Before any other pension dashboard services can qualify of the following conditions applies— under section 238A of the Pensions Act 2004 (qualifying (a) the scheme employer is replaced by a special purpose pensions dashboard service)— vehicle (SPV) employer, or (a) the pensions dashboard service under subsection (1) (b) the liability of the employer to fund the scheme’s must have been established for at least one year, and liabilities is replaced by an employer backed with a (b) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a capital injection to a capital buffer. report on the operation and effectiveness of the pensions (3) The statement under subsection (1) shall be laid before dashboard service under subsection (1) in its first Parliament before the end of a period of six months from the day year.” on which this Act receives Royal Assent.” Amendment 14, page 116, line 37, at end insert— This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish “(3) Before any other pension dashboard services can qualify within six months of Royal Assent proposals for primary legislation under section238A of the Pensions Act 2004 (qualifying pensions to place a duty on the Pensions Regulator to regulate pension dashboard service) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament superfunds. a report on the operation and effectiveness of the pensions Amendment 15, in clause 118, page 104, line 19, at dashboard service, including the adequacy of consumer protections.” end insert— This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on “(3) Requirements prescribed under subsection (2) must the operation and effectiveness of the public dashboard service include a requirement that a pensions dashboard service may not (including consumer protections) before allowing commercial dashboards include a facility for engaging in financial transaction activities.” to operate. This amendment ensures that a pensions dashboard does not Amendment 7, in clause 123, page 117, line 34, at end include a provision for financial transaction activities. insert— Amendment 9, page 105, line 20, at end insert— “(2) In exercising any powers to make regulations, or otherwise to prescribe any matter or principle, under Part 3 of the Pensions “(6A) A requirement under subsection (6)(d) may require the Act 2004 (scheme funding) as amended by Schedule 10, the provider of a pensions dashboard service to ensure that the needs objectives of the Secretary of State must include ensuring that of people in vulnerable circumstances, including but not exclusively— schemes that are expected to remain open to new members, either (a) persons who suffer long-term sickness or disability, indefinitely or for a significant period of time, can adopt funding (b) carers, and investment strategies which are suited to the characteristics of such schemes.” (c) persons on low incomes, and Amendment 1, page 117, line 34, at end insert— (d) recipients of benefits, “(2) In exercising any powers to make regulations, or otherwise are met and that resources are allocated in such a way as to to prescribe any matter or principle, under Part 3 of the Pensions allow specially trained advisers and guidance to be made available Act 2004 (scheme funding) as amended by Schedule 10, the to them.” Secretary of State must ensure that— 59 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 60

(a) schemes that are expected to remain open to new This amendment enables regulations that would mandate occupational members, either indefinitely or for a significant period pension schemes to develop a strategy for ensuring that their of time, are treated differently from schemes that are investments and stewardship activities are aligning with the Paris not; agreement goals, and include an objective of achieving net-zero (b) scheme liquidity is balanced with scheme maturity; greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner. (c) there is a correlation between appropriate investment Amendment 17, page 119, line 7, after “scheme” risk and scheme maturity; insert (d) affordability of contributions to employers is maintained; “and alignment with achieving the objectives of the Paris Agreement goal or other climate change goal”. (e) affordability of contributions to members is maintained; This amendment is consequent on Amendment 16. (f) the closure of schemes that are expected to remain Amendment 18, page 119, line 8, leave out “section 41A” open to new members, either indefinitely or for a significant period of time, is not accelerated; and and insert “sections 41A and 41AA”. (g) trustees retain sufficient discretion to be able to comply This amendment is consequent on Amendment 16. with their duty to act in the best interests of their Amendment 19, page 119, line 19, after “41A”, insert beneficiaries.” “, 41AA”. This amendment seeks to ensure that open and active schemes which This amendment is consequent on Amendment 16. are receiving regular, significant cash contributions and closed Amendment 20, page 119, line 21, after “41A”, insert schemes are treated differently, in accordance with their differing liquidity profile. “, 41AA”. Amendment 6, page 117, line 34, at end insert— This amendment is consequent on Amendment 16. “(2) The Secretary of State must, on or before 30 June 2021, Amendment 21, page 119, line 22, at end insert— lay before Parliament a comprehensive impact assessment of the “(za) provide for the Authority to undertake a review of, effect on the charitable sector of changes to defined benefit and report publicly on, the extent to which the activities schemes made under Schedule 10.” under sections 41A and 41AA are achieving effective governance of climate change risk and alignment of This amendment would require the Government to produce an pension schemes with the Paris Agreement goal;”. economic impact assessment of the changes to defined benefit schemes upon the charitable sector. This amendment enables the regulator to publicly assess the progress Amendment 16, in clause 124, page 118, line 45, leave and development of schemes’ strategies to achieve alignment with out subsection (8) and insert— Paris agreement goals. Amendment 22, page 119, line 25, after “41A”, insert “(8) In this section and in sections 41AA, 41B and 41C— “, 41AA”. (a) “the Paris Agreement goal” means the objectives set This amendment is consequent on Amendment 16. out in Articles 2 and 4.1 of the agreement done at Paris on 12 December 2015; and Amendment 23, page 119, line 30, after “41A”, insert “, 41AA”. (b) “other climate change goal” means any climate change goal approved by the Secretary of State, but does not This amendment is consequent on Amendment 16. apply to a climate change goal which fails to meet the Amendment 24, page 119, line 37, after “41A”, insert objectives of the Paris Agreement goal. “, 41AA”. 41AA Alignment with the Paris Agreement goal This amendment is consequent on Amendment 16. (1) Trustees or managers of occupational pension schemes of Amendment 2, in clause 125, page 120, line 32, at end a prescribed description must develop, set and implement, and from time to time review and if necessary revise, a strategy for insert— ensuring that their investment policy, objectives and practices “(e) the results of due diligence undertaken by the trustees (including stewardship activities) are aligned with the Paris or managers regarding the intended transfer or the Agreement goal or other climate change goal. receiving scheme.” (2) Such a strategy is to be known as a “Paris-alignment This amendment enables regulations under inserted subsection (6ZA) strategy”. of section 95 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to prescribe conditions (3) The objective of a Paris-alignment strategy must be to about the results of due diligence undertaken in relation to a achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner, transfer request such as to determine that the statutory right to a consistent with the Paris Agreement goal or other climate change transfer is not established if specific “red flags” are identified in goal. relation to the transfer or intended receiving pension scheme.Amendments 3, 4 and 5 are related. (4) Provision may be made by regulations— Amendment 3, page 121, line 27, at end insert— (a) requiring the trustees or managers of a scheme, in “(e) the results of due diligence undertaken by the trustees determining or revising a Paris-alignment strategy, to or managers regarding the intended transfer or the takeinto account prescribed matters and follow prescribed receiving scheme.” principles— This amendment enables regulations under inserted subsection (5A) (i) as to the level of detail required in a Paris-alignment of section 101F of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to prescribe strategy; and conditions about the results of due diligence undertaken in relation (ii) as to the period within which a Paris-alignment to a transfer request such as to determine that the statutory right to strategy must be developed, set and effected; a transfer is not established if specific “red flags” are identified in relation to the transfer or intended receiving pension scheme. (b) requiring annual reporting on the implementation of Amendments 2, 4 and 5 are related. the Paris-alignment strategy and progress against the objective set out in subsection (3); and Amendment 12, in schedule 9, page 178, line 14, after “scheme,” insert— (c) requiring a Paris-alignment strategy to be reviewed, and if necessary revised, at such intervals and on (iva) the total cost of charges incurred for the administration such occasions as may be prescribed.” of the scheme”. 61 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 62

This amendment would add information about the total cost of Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, charges incurred for the administration and management of and that is precisely what new clause 1 is intended to occupational pension schemes in Northern Ireland to the list of deliver. information displayed on the dashboard. Amendment 4, in schedule 11, page 192, line 20, at Monthly data used to be published on the usage of end insert— Pension Wise. The Government committed to monthly publication in December 2015 in their response to the “(e) the results of due diligence undertaken by the trustees or managers regarding the intended transfer or the Work and Pensions Committee’s report “Pension freedom receiving scheme.” guidance and advice”, but monthly publication stopped in January 2019. Now the data is only published annually. This amendment enables regulations under inserted subsection (6ZA) of section 91 of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 I tabled a question about that, asking for monthly to prescribe conditions about the results of due diligence undertaken publication to be resumed. The Minister answered no, in relation to a transfer request such as to determine that the and said: statutory right to a transfer is not established if specific “red flags” “The annual reporting allows for wider analysis and commentary are identified in relation to the transfer or intended receiving against the figures rather than that previously published month pension scheme. Amendments 2, 3 and 5 are related. by month.” Amendment 5, page 193, line 15, at end insert— However, nothing is lost by publishing every month. “(e) the results of due diligence undertaken by the trustees or managers regarding the intended transfer or the receiving scheme.” The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work This amendment enables regulations under inserted subsection (5A) and Pensions (Guy Opperman): I am grateful to the right of section 97F of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 hon. Gentleman for our conversation in the Library to prescribe conditions about the results of due diligence undertaken beforehand, during which he flagged this point to me. in relation to a transfer request such as to determine that the Subject to the powers that I have, given that Pension statutory right to a transfer is not established if specific “red flags” Wise is an arm’s length body, I am very happy to review are identified in relation to the transfer or intended receiving the annual publication, to go back to a monthly publication. pension scheme. Amendments 2, 3 and 4 are related. I would simply make the point that the “Stronger Stephen Timms: I rise to speak to new clause 1, Nudge” is happening as a result of the Work and together with amendments 2 to 5, and I am grateful to Pensions Committee’s 2018 recommendation. We are those from my party, the Conservative party and the enacting what the Committee asked us to do. SNP who have added their names to them. New clause 1 addresses a serious flaw in the Stephen Timms: I am very grateful to the Minister for implementation of the pension freedoms that that assurance, and I look forward to monthly publication announced in his Budget speech in resuming. 2014 and that were implemented the following year. To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey This is what George Osborne said in that Budget speech (Ms Eagle), who I am delighted to see in her place, at on 19 March 2014: the Treasury Committee a couple of weeks ago the “Let me be clear: no one will have to buy an annuity. We are chair of the Financial Conduct Authority spoke about going to introduce a new guarantee, enforced by law, that everyone who retires on these defined contribution schemes will be offered defined-contribution pension savers. He said: free, impartial, face-to-face advice on how to get the most from “This issue about people making poor choices when exercising the choices they will now have.”—[Official Report, 19 March the freedoms…is probably the one that I worry about most 2014; Vol. 577, c. 793.] of all.” That was a recognition that there could be pitfalls in He went on to say that safeguards need to be allowing people to do whatever they wanted with their pension savings—for many people, the largest sum of “as strong as they humanly can be”. money they would ever have access to—and that the The FCA has had a go. As the Minister pointed out Government would have to ensure that everybody had in Committee, last November the FCA introduced new access to guidance to help them make the best decisions. rules requiring clearer signposting and promotion of The outcome of George Osborne’s promise is the pensions guidance. However, it has not worked. FCA Pension Wise service operated by Citizens Advice, and data shows that just 14% of pension pots were accessed it is an excellent service. It is free and it is impartial, as after guidance was taken in the six months from George Osborne promised, and it gets very high satisfaction October 2019 to March 2020—exactly the same proportion ratings from those who use it. The problem is that hardly as before the new rules. anyone does use it, and new clause 1 is intended to fix that. It was not just George Osborne who had the ambition The latest figures show that about one in 33 of those that everybody should benefit. The Treasury’s public eligible for Pension Wise actually use it. Last month, financial guidance review, published for consultation in the Department for Work and Pensions published a March 2016, said: document entitled “Stronger Nudge to Pensions Guidance: “Guidance is vital to ensure that individuals are fully aware of Statement of Policy Intent”. That proposed the adoption their options before they make a decision on what to do with their of new nudges, which, according to the trials, would retirement savings”. increase the take-up from one in 33 to one in nine. Well, that is not enough. The then Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for West (Harriett Baldwin), said the following Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): On that point, I month that the Government were introducing thank my right hon. Friend for the way he is championing “a requirement that, in effect, ensures that consumers with a consumer advice in this very difficult space. Does he high-value annuity receive appropriate financial advice before agree with me that we do not want a stronger nudge, but making the decision to sell their annuity”.—[Official Report, a great big shove into the arms of impartial, free advice? 19 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 876.] 63 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 64

[Stephen Timms] Stephen Timms: The great strength of the Pension Wise approach is in providing appointments that deliver Today, unfortunately, there is no such requirement. Two guidance to a very large number of people. The issue years later, in April 2018, her successor, the hon. Member that the hon. Gentleman talks about will need to be for Salisbury (John Glen), who is the current Economic managed in the context of a national service that already Secretary, said that, before proceeding with an access or exists—one that is helping a significant number already transfer application, and ought to be helping a lot more. The default should “subject to any exceptions, schemes must ensure that individuals be that people get an appointment. have either received Pension Wise guidance or have opted out.”— The chair of the Money and Pensions Service told [Official Report, 24 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 831.] the Work and Pensions Committee in March that 72% of That aspiration has simply not been delivered. Today, people change their mind about what they are going to the Government are taking steps that their own investigation do as a result of talking to Pension Wise. He pointed says would make it true in 11% of cases. New clause 1 out that would finally deliver on the commitment that the Economic Secretary thought he was delivering on two years ago. “that tells you that the vast majority of people, left to their own devices, will probably make a poor decision.” It was not just the Treasury. The noble Baroness Buscombe, who was a Minister in the Department for However, the Government’s current policy will leave Work and Pensions at the same time as the current eight out of nine savers in exactly that position. Minister, said in the other place on 1 May 2018: Last week, the Minister received a four-page letter “We all want people to make more informed decisions and to from Age UK and other organisations that said: make it the norm to use Pension Wise before accessing their “The DWP should rightfully be proud of Pension Wise, but pension.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 May 2018; Vol. 790, usage is still worryingly low, and it is a great concern that the c. 1995.] ‘Stronger Nudge’ trials report published by the Money and Everybody agreed that it should be the norm. Today, Pensions Service shows that only a marginal improvement in the Minister has set his ambition at 11% take-up. How take-up is likely to result from this approach.” can it be that ambition in his Department has shrunk so We have to do much better; they are quite right. The far? New clause 1 would resolve it using auto-enrolment letter goes on to argue that non-advised savers should to increase the take-up of guidance, just as it has been be opted in automatically, as proposed in new clause 1. used so successfully to increase pension saving. It also provides detailed rebuttals to the arguments that Mr (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con): the Minister used against this new clause in Committee, The right hon. Gentleman speaks with huge authority which are on the record. on this subject, having formerly been Pensions Minister. Of course, Age UK is quite right: the Department’s He will, however, appreciate that no matter how many plans are currently inadequate. The letter goes on to times some people are written to, they simply will not point out that the Minister’s suggestion in Committee respond, so there will be a proportion of people to whom that the FCA’s introduction next year of its investment letters are written who will not take up the option of an pathways might deal with the problem is not going to appointment and will not indicate that they wish to opt work either. We cannot sit back while Pension Wise out. What does he propose for those people? I dare say continues to be an excellent service taken up by a very there will be a significant number of them. For them, it small minority. The Government and regulators need to will be maintenance of the status quo. end their indifference on this. Aspiring to 11% take-up Stephen Timms: The proposal in new clause 1 is that is not enough. We need auto-enrolment into a service people should be auto-enrolled into an appointment—that that enables better outcomes from pension savings. everyone should be given an appointment. That would One of the reasons for the importance of Pension have the effect, I believe and submit, of very significantly Wise is that it equips people to avoid being scammed. increasing the number of people who access Pension Wise. The Pension Scams Industry Group estimates that 40,000 Pension Wise is a very good service. It is funded by an savers have been scammed out of their savings in the industry levy. Nine out of 10 of those who use it report five years since pension freedoms were introduced. Some high or very high satisfaction—that is a pretty impressive of them do not yet know about it. A significantly higher level of satisfaction—but it is hidden away from most number of Pension Wise users than non-users say that people. Lots of people have never heard of it. they are very or fairly confident about avoiding pension scams, having had an interview with Pension Wise. The Mr Vara: I note that the right hon. Gentleman says default ought to be that people are given an appointment. people would be given an appointment, but if the I hope that the Minister will accept the new clause, but notification were by email, the fact is that people simply if he does not I hope that the House will have a chance ignore a lot of emails. People do not always look at all to vote on it. the letters that are sent to them, or they mean to refer back to a letter, thinking, “Oh, I’ve got an appointment; Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 address the scam problem. I’ll get back to that,” but they do not, for whatever They are probing amendments, because the Minister reason. There are also people who move home address has helpfully explained that he intends to introduce and so on, who will never be notified if the letter goes to regulations under powers in the Bill that have the same the wrong address and there has been a time gap, and effect as the regulations that would be introduced if the the pensions people have not registered the new address. amendments were added to the Bill. I accept where the right hon. Gentleman is going and I I was in touch—the Minister has heard me say this have huge sympathy with what he seeks to achieve, but before—with a nurse who works in a health centre in there will still be a substantial number of people who my constituency. Her husband drives a black cab. Some will ignore the appointment that will simply be sent to years ago, a financial adviser whom they knew well and them as a fait accompli. who had given them good advice previously called to 65 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 66 tell them about an opportunity to realise their pension enforcement and regulators, including: the facilitation savings early with no real downside. They took up his of a more co-ordinated and consistent response across offer, and the upshot is that all their savings have gone, the various agencies; a specialist fraud victim support and they face a massive tax bill of about £60,000 with service; regulation for introducers, who are not regulated no means to pay it. The financial adviser, I gather, is at the moment; and, new digital technology for the living on a yacht off Tenerife. police to support and speed up analysis of the large All of us can understand how devastating is the volumes of evidence collected in investigations. impact on hard-working families of being robbed of their life savings in that way. People who have worked 5.45 pm hard, who have done the right thing and who are The Bill was amended in the other place so that if a entitled to look forward to a secure retirement suddenly defined benefit transfer application raises one of the red find that their hopes have been destroyed. The Transparency flags on a prescribed list of features likely to indicate Task Force, one of the groups that urged the Select that a scam is going on, the trustees must delay the Committee to undertake its current inquiry on scams, transfer until the saver has taken financial advice. The reports cases of spouses who, sometimes for years, have four amendments are based on work by the Pension not dared tell their partners what has happened, so Scams Industry Group, and I pay tribute to Margaret awful are the consequences. People wake up every day Snowdon and her colleagues for their work. The in dread of the future, often ashamed and embarrassed amendments would empower trustees to refuse the transfer to have fallen for such bare-faced lies. Scammers groom if they had good grounds, based on the red flag analysis, people and make themselves trusted family friends. for believing that the proposed transfer involved moving They warn savers that schemes will advise them not to pension savings into a scam. I welcome the assurances transfer their money, and they claim that that is because that the Minister has given, and has just repeated, that the schemes want to hang on to it for their own gain. If he will bring forward regulations under existing powers the saver becomes aware that the receiving scheme has in the Bill to have that effect. I noticed that research fallen foul of regulators, they say that that was just carried out last month by YouGov for the People’s because someone was late filling in some forms. Pension found that 78% of people questioned agreed It seems absurd that, as the law stands, trustees are that pension companies should be able to step in to stop compelled to make a transfer if a member demands it, a transfer if they believe it is a scam. even if they know that the money is going to crooks. As I discussed in Committee, we need to be careful Even if the receiving scheme is on the warning list about exemptions from the regulations that the Minister published by the Financial Conduct Authority of firms will table. It would be a serious mistake to exempt all known to be suspect, the law requires trustees to go FCA-registered schemes, because unfortunately a lot of ahead with the transfer. If they are slow about it, they scams are FCA-registered. I am told, for example, that can be fined. The Select Committee has launched a it is perfectly possible for schemes to be both FCA-registered three-part inquiry looking at scams. There have been and on the FCA warning list. An overseas adviser, lots of calls for the Committee to look at the issue, probably somewhere else in the EU and not FCA-registered, because there is widespread revulsion at the scandals could use the platform of a UK self-invested personal that have occurred and fear of the damage to individuals pension that is FCA-registered to offer exotic investments and to the industry as a whole. There is a particular overseas. That is the form that many scams take, and we worry that pension freedoms, plus the financial pressures need to be careful not to exempt arrangements of that of the pandemic, could create what the Pensions Regulator kind from the regulations when they come forward. We has called a golden age for pension scams, as people are must avoid loopholes that allow crimes to carry on. anxious to get hold of their money. Implementation of the pensions freedoms without the intended safeguards has caused a great deal of harm. Guy Opperman: I am grateful to the right hon. We must now put those safeguards in place. I welcome Gentleman for giving way again. He knows that I have the assurances that the Minister has given, and I welcome exchanged a series of letters with the Work and Pensions the fact that the Department will consult widely on the Committee and with him, having met him and the regulations to be drawn up in parallel with the Select all-party parliamentary group on financial crime and Committee inquiry. I hope we can make speedy progress. scamming, and that I have placed in the House of Drastically increasing the take-up of Pension Wise guidance, Commons Library letters of 6 October and 22 October. as proposed in new clause 1, is a key part of the Following his suggestion in Committee, I clarified an solution. extra point in a letter dated 11 November, which I placed in the Library. We share his revulsion on these Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con): It is a pleasure to particular points, and believe that clause 125, with speak in the debate, to follow the right hon. Member for suitable regulation, can address these issues. East Ham (Stephen Timms), the Chair of the Select Committee and to speak to the amendments that he has Stephen Timms: I am grateful for the assurances that tabled and I have signed. I will start where he did, with the Minister has given. One of the problems is that the the issue of mandatory guidance—or as near mandatory responsibility for responding to scams cuts across many as we could make it, as I raised on Second Reading. different bodies. The court ruling last week that the The right hon. Gentleman quoted the key statistics, fraud compensation fund could be used to compensate which show that the take-up of this excellent, high-quality some pension scam victims is a significant development. service—it attracts brilliantly good feedback from those The Police Foundation published an important who use it, and the people who provide that service report in September called “Protecting people’s accept that it changes the mind of 70-something per cent. pensions: Understanding and preventing scans”, and of those who actually use it—is feebly low. Trials showed that recommends a coherent set of principles for law that the figure was somewhere around 3%, before the 67 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 68

[Nigel Mills] what their options are and what they might need advice on, and then they go and get advice. That is a perfectly nudge was implemented. That is not what this Parliament sensible use of guidance. I am not standing here saying envisaged when, five or so years ago, we introduced the let us have 100% of people, no matter if they have a tiny pension freedoms. The safeguard we put in place at that pension pot and there really is not much they can do time was to create the Pension Wise service: free guidance with it, or if they have such huge ones they should be so that people would have the chance to check what taking paid-for advice, but the right answer cannot be they were doing was the right thing for them in exercising 14%. Even if we manage to roll out the nudge across choices they did not used to have. Those choices are every pension scheme in the country, we can only get to incredibly complicated. In many cases, they are a once- 14% of people. That cannot be the extent of our aspiration. and-for-all: once they have done something, they cannot That is why there have been various proposals on how reverse out of it. we send people an appointment. If they do not take it, That is why, as a Parliament, we were so keen for they can rearrange it, but until they have taken that people to have that chance of a warning and to understand appointment, or until they have signed to say that they how this all works. They save up all their money for understand they could have one but that they really, 40 or so years at work and get to the very end point. In really do not want it, they cannot access their pension many cases, they do not understand all the options. pot. I appreciate that some people will be rather angry They do not know what they are being sold and they when they pick up the phone to their pension scheme buy the wrong thing. The data in the FCA’sown retirement and are told they have to wait three weeks for a Pension outcomes review from about three years ago shows that Wise appointment before they can do that, but that, I a high proportion of people are just defaulting into a think, is a price worth paying for them not to make a drawdown scheme with their existing pension provider. terrible mistake that they cannot reverse. They are not shopping around and looking at the other There is a real danger if people only get the nudge options. from their existing provider. We have all heard or taken part in those phone calls where we are told, “Now I’m Ms Angela Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree going to have to switch the recorder on and read out some that at the moment the decumulation pension industry regulatory messages, but don’t worry, it’s all a bit of is unregulated, so there is no transparency on costs or nonsense. It’s just one of those things we have to tell on the kind of charges that may be applied to drawdown you. You don’t really need to listen. At the end just say yes.” schemes? That is another area where people might be Then they record the phone call and in that long spiel of being scammed. “nonsense” there are the words, “and you have agreed to opt out of your Pension Wise appointment” and that Nigel Mills: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. If only is sufficient. That is the situation we are trying to avoid: she was on the Select Committee, because that is an issue people relying on one provider for their information. I have raised on a few occasions. Over the past decade I can accept that, as with all Back-Bench amendments, or so, we have very effectively regulated the accumulation this proposal is not perfect. Is five years the right time? phase, but we have not yet got the decumulation phase Are we going to end up spending far more than we need in quite the same position, with charge caps. The default to? If, for some reason, the Minister will not accept this pathways are a great step forward that will help people, and has not come forward with alternative ways of doing but there is a real danger even with that that people will this in law, I hope that he will at least accept that, even if end up on a default pathway with their default provider, we could roll out the nudge to all the providers that are rather than looking around to see whether there are any as good as the ones the FCA used, a 14% aspiration is better options in the market. not sufficient. We could all work together, with the We desperately need to find ways to get more people Select Committee and other key players, to work out to access the free high-quality guidance. There is no what we think the right percentage take-up of Pension reason for them not to do so. They do not have to pay a Wise would be, set that as a target for the FCA and if in huge fee or wait a long time, and it is not a painful two or three years it cannot get to that target, we can experience. It can be a relatively short phone call just to come back with legislation and put a default position in alert them to the situation and provide information. We place. This would be a final warning to the FCA. need to get those numbers up. Last time we had a pensions Bill we had amendments calling for default Guy Opperman: I am conscious of interrupting my guidance. We accepted a compromise that the FCA hon. Friend’sflow,but that is clearly what the Government would do some work and find a way of increasing are seeking to do. Anyone who reads the 28 October take-up so we would not need to legislate. The problem report will see that it specifically states that there should is that the FCA, I am afraid, took quite a long time to be engagement with the Select Committee and various get round to starting the process. It did studies with organisations. It also says that the product of the some larger pension providers, showing that if they behavioural tests was limited, but there are many other used the nudge with an extra reminder and gave them ways that one can extend this as far as is practically the information that Pension Wise exists, they could get possible. take-up up to about 14%, or one in seven people. Nigel Mills: I am grateful to the Minister.That document I accept that we do not want or need 100% of people came out on my birthday, so it was a very happy present approaching retirement to take pension guidance. Some in some ways. When we read it, however, we have to will be on such large pensions they will take advice that remember that the process the FCA went through was they pay for. In that situation, there is not much need with some of the largest, most reputable and most capable for them to have simpler guidance. The irony is that the pension schemes, and even then it got only an 11% increase data shows a lot of people use pension guidance as a from the derisory 3% to a 14% take-up. It is not clear to first step towards advice. They use guidance to work out me that, when trying to roll that out over the whole 69 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 70 sector, we could even get that high if we were relying on person has to think again, take better advice, discuss it smaller pension schemes or those that did not have the with a member of their family, take Pension Wise same resources. I hope the Minister will accept that we guidance and not want to go ahead with the aggressive want to set a target that is much higher than 14%. step that has been proposed to them. The Minister has Whether it needs to be 50% or some other figure is come up with a way forward that does not need primary something that we could work on. Perhaps he could tell legislation, so I am glad that we are bringing the us in his closing remarks whether he agrees that the amendments forward only as probing amendments. Government should set the FCA a much higher target. Would he at least accept the principle that, if we cannot 6 pm get there by his preferred route of a nudge, we would have I turn to new clause 6 and the regulation of superfunds. to look again at some kind of default system? Perhaps I think I said on Second Reading that it is not often that he will come back to that when he wraps up the debate. Opposition and Back-Bench Members ask the Government to take more powers in a Bill. I make no criticism but it One argument that is often used on this issue is that a is slightly strange to legislate to require the Government lot more appointments would cost a lot more and that to legislate on a future date. But I accept that the the levy would therefore go up. Yes, but I think that Opposition are trying to do the right thing. As the when we created this structure, we assumed there would regulator has said that we need legislation for superfunds, be a lot more appointments and that the costs would be I hope the Minister can assure us that we will be able to a lot higher. The benefits of a retiring person not find time, as and when the legislation has been drafted, making a catastrophic mistake with their 40 years’ to get it through and we will not be stuck in a horrible lifetime savings outweigh the relatively small cost per situation of superfunds existing, gradually increasing person of providing the guidance. I know the Minister market share, some things happening that we would is very keen, as I would be, on the idea of a midlife rather were not happening, and then not being able to MOT, but I do not think that that should replace this stop those because we do not have parliamentary time. proposal. Giving someone a session in the middle of With that reassurance, I would not need to consider their working life, so that they know what their financial supporting the new clause. position is and what they can do about it, is not the same as giving someone help as they are about to start Various amendments on the dashboards have been decumulating their pension so that they understand tabled. My vision for dashboards has always been that their options at that very important time. I am not sure we need as many dashboards out there as we can have that, if we told most people at the age of 45 what their so that people can see their pension saving status in options would be when they retired at 68, they would whatever financial app they choose to use. I therefore still have them in mind when they came to make those would not support amendments that seek to restrict this decisions. Pension Wise is not a substitute for a midlife to only one dashboard, even for a period of time. I do MOT. We should have them both, and they should be as not support the idea of a dashboard being a two-way widely used as possible. process: it would not only suck data in and inform you, but you could, on the tube home after a few beers on a I personally would prefer a default guidance Friday night, accidently transfer all your pension into appointment, with someone having to sign in blood if something you will regret. So I do not support there they really did not want this free, excellent quality guidance generally being transaction capability. before they could access their money. If the Government I have a concern with amendment 15. If my existing are not proposing that, I propose the compromise of pension scheme had a dashboard where I could check setting a much higher target and if we cannot get there all my pension savings and I thought, “Oh God, they any other way, we will come back to this yet again. are much lower than I thought. I would like to increase The other amendments that I have signed cover scam my monthly contribution with my existing pension prevention, which I think the Chair of the Select Committee provider,” that would be a sensible transaction for me to and the Minister have dealt with pretty well. I accept start to make from the pensions dashboard. That is there has to be a balance. If we have freedom of choice, different from being able, via one click of a button, people have to be free to do what they want with their accidently to transfer all my pensions from one provider own savings, and if some of the things they choose to using that system. I therefore cannot support the wording do are ill advised or crazy, that is their choice. However, of the amendment because it may go a little bit far. But I want them to be able to make an informed choice so I support the spirit of it. that they know the risks of what they are doing and will I turn to amendment 16 and the Paris climate change not be tricked by a heavy sell from a scam provider who agreement stuff. There is a real danger, if we are not is selling something totally unsuitable for someone of careful, that we will put trustees in an invidious position. that level of means. They rightly have a legal duty to act in the best interests It must be right that when trustees have evidence or of their members, and that duty is to get those members suspect that what they are being asked to do is clearly the best possible pension. If we put them under a not in the best interests of the saver, they can refuse to second legal duty that would restrict where they could make the transfer if those red flags appear. If there is invest the pension scheme’s money, that may end up other evidence that it just looks to be a rather stupid with lower returns. I assume that if Paris climate change idea, they should at least be able to slow down the agreement-friendly investments gave a higher return, transaction, perhaps delaying it by a month. Perhaps they would choose them already, so there must be a they could refuse to do it unless the person took Pension reason why they would not want to do that. Wise guidance, or at any rate find some way of slowing Wewould be giving trustees a horrible dilemma: do they it down. One of the things that scammers need is comply with the rule to get the best pension for their —they rush people into making a decision. members, or the rule to get the most climate-friendly The more we can build in delay, the more chance a one? That would put them in an impossible position 71 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 72 and, sadly, it would probably be bad for savers. I think strategy and we are just investing in legal businesses”, we need to approach that matter in a different way from which we would presumably put taxes or carbon levies that proposed in amendment 16. I support the spirit— on to make sure we push this. It becomes a circle that would presumably mean only that the trustees have to Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab): Is the hon. produce a strategy and occasionally review it. It would Member saying that climate really is not very important not actually drive a great deal of different behaviour. I because that is what I hear him saying on this? He is think I would want to see much more activist investment giving the trustees no confidence in having to make from pension schemes and their investment advisers to those decisions. How does he expect us to reach zero ensure that the businesses that they are investing in are carbon by 2050 if that is the case? sticking to their obligations and strategies on how they can reduce their impact on the environment, making Nigel Mills: I was coming on to say that there are sure that those promises are being kept on a management better ways we could do this. I accept that we should level rather than setting trustees an impossible target, encourage funds as strongly as we can to use the vast which I am not sure would even mean what hon. Members sums at their disposal to support investment in climate seek to make it mean. goals and other socially positive activities, but that should be done in part through member choice. There Guy Opperman: I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments, should be eco-friendly pension schemes and socially but surely the key point about clause 124 is that it does responsible ones, but they should allow their members set out what we are trying to do on that issue, and it to choose to opt into those schemes, and not have them deals with the consultation that we issued in August as the default, if they are going to have a lower pension specifically on the point that the hon. Member for at the end of it. Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) raised, taking action on climate risk and improving governance and reporting Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con): Does my by occupational pension schemes. That is the measure hon. Friend agree that an unintended effect of that we should be focusing on. amendment 16 might be that pension funds feel they have to divest themselves from oil giants and so on? Nigel Mills: I am grateful to the Minister and I agree. Those are the companies we need to address climate The measures in the Bill are very sensible steps forward change—we cannot get to net zero without working that will make a great difference. What is proposed in with them—and divestment is not the right approach. amendment 16 would just create a horrible mess for the pensions industry without really achieving anything Nigel Mills: I agree, and I was coming on to that further, so I will not support it if it is pushed to a vote. argument. I am not sure that achieving net zero can be Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD): I would pushed down to individual pension schemes and individual like to speak to amendments 1 and 6, which have been investment advisers. I suspect we will have to accept that tabled in my name and the names of other Liberal between now and 2050, there will be some businesses Democrat Members, and in favour of the cross-party out there that are bad for the environment but we are amendment 7, tabled in the name of the hon. Member still going to need their products and services. We will for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), as well as to his new need some of those even after 2050. We will achieve net clauses 4 and 5. I was very pleased to see new clauses 4 zero by having other businesses that are more positive and 5 tabled and I pay tribute to the work of the for the environment, with some still being bad for it. I all-party group on plumbers’ pensions—chaired by the am not sure that we can require every individual pension hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete scheme to be a net zero investor. Otherwise, there will be Wishart)—of which I am a vice-chair. a load of things that they just cannot invest in, as they cannot achieve that strategy. I have a constituent who was a member of the plumbers’ pension scheme, and the trustees failed to notify him I fully agree with the sentiment and agree that the and others that, were they to leave the scheme, he would industry needs to do more. I said on Second Reading find himself liable under section 75. He had been a that what we do not need are posh written documents responsible small business employer, enabling all his that sit there with nice-sounding promises that never get employees to be part of a pension scheme and to save implemented. We need pension schemes and their for their retirement. When he retired and wound up the investment managers to be much more— business, he was not made aware of the consequences (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op): by the trustees from a pensions perspective of doing so. I will not address this in detail because I will have my That means that through no fault of his own, he is now own opportunity to do so, but I make it very clear that in a position where, because his business is no longer the amendment does not enforce or mandate pension operating, he cannot apply for current easement schemes funds to be net zero. It would ensure that they have an and, because his business was not incorporated, he is investment strategy, including a stewardship strategy, personally liable for the debt. He is now an elderly man that is consistent with those objectives. It is drafted and is being pursued by the trustees. They are threatening specifically to address those concerns and hon. Members to repossess his house and his life savings are at risk. have nothing to worry about in that regard. Were that to happen, the sums recovered from him would not even pay off half the outstanding debt. Nigel Mills: I am grateful to the hon. Member, but I My constituent told me: am not sure what the amendment would achieve then. If “We are now in the third year of this, and it is taking a toll on we say to a pension scheme, “You need to make sure my health, and also on the health of my wife.” that your overall investments are consistent with the If passed, new clause 4 would turn my constituent’s life nationwide net zero strategy”, they can just say, “Of around. The safeguards are there. His total debt is only course we are because there is a nationwide net zero a tiny proportion of the total liabilities, and the trustees 73 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 74 have determined that the majority of cessation events Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): This is an important will be too costly or lengthy to seek recovery. That is one point and the Minister will know that there are open of the issues here: there is an injustice going on that has schemes with considerable assets which could be deployed not received the attention it deserves because relatively to the advantage of this nation in investing in means of few people have been affected by it, but that also presents growth for the future. Where they are funded, being the opportunity that something can be done and I hope open, it gives them a huge advantage and of course the that the Minister will comment accordingly on new current situation on bond yields makes it even less clause 4 and look further at this plumbers’ pension helpful for them purely to invest in gilts and so on. So I issue. It is causing hardship and anxiety for, arguably, strongly support what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she an increasingly vulnerable group of people. agree that it would be helpful if the Minister could refer I shall now address part 5 and schedule 10 and, in to this again in winding up? particular, clause 123 on defined-benefit schemes. My colleague in the Lords, Baroness Bowles, tabled the Wendy Chamberlain: I thank the hon. Gentleman for original amendment to clause 123 that would ensure his endorsement of my remarks. I hope the Minister that defined-benefit schemes are treated differently, will comment on this in winding up. depending on whether they are open or closed. I pay Open and closed schemes are on a continuum. A tribute to Baroness Bowles.Her amendment had cross-party scheme opens, it matures, it becomes closed, it reaches support in the Lords, so it was disappointing that the the absolute end of the range of maturity, and the risk Government removed it in Committee two weeks ago. profile varies with that maturity. However, parts of the My amendment 1 would reinstate Baroness Bowles’s consultation document do not seem to recognise this, amendment, and amendment 7 in the name of the hon. which is concerning. There is an understandable desire Member for Airdrie and Shotts is a revised version of it, from employers and employees for this to be clarified. which I have also signed. I did not have the chance to sit There is real concern that the regulator wants open on the Bill Committee, but I did follow proceedings and schemes to be considered as if they were on the brink of I was encouraged by the Minister’s comments during forced closure, but that means effectively crystallising Committee on open defined-benefit schemes. He said: their investment structure into a closed structure and “We acknowledge that if such schemes do continue to admit preventing them from acting as they need to, as the hon. new entrants and do not mature then the scheme will not actually Gentleman suggested. So I ask the Minister to recommit reach significant maturity. We are content that such a scheme to the House that this will not happen, otherwise our retains the same flexibility in its funding and investment strategies concerns will remain, and Baroness Bowles and her that all immature schemes have.”––[Official Report, Pension Schemes colleagues in the Lords will continue to press the Public Bill Committee, 5 November 2020; c. 81.] Government on this when amendments return to the I welcome those comments, which imply that open other place. schemes should, and will, be treated differently from There is a huge risk to getting this wrong. Members closed schemes, in accordance with different investment, highlighted on Second Reading the issue of railway liquidity and maturity, and I hope the Minister will be pensions. Their campaigning has been very important able to recommit to that statement on the Floor of the in raising the potential impact of this Bill on defined-benefit House today. I urge him to accept either amendment 1 schemes. I also want to highlight the charitable sector or amendment 7, which would put that commitment on and many large charities that rely on DB schemes: the face of the Bill and provide much needed reassurance Oxfam, Age UK, Cancer Research, the National Trust for open schemes that have contacted me, and, I am and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, to name sure, have contacted other Members, in advance of this but a few.My amendment 6 would require the Government debate. to carry out an economic impact assessment on the We need that reassurance because there is real concern effect of changes to DB schemes on that important sector. about the regulator’s consultation. Looking at the We have already heard that open schemes will end up consultation document, there are places where it looks with deficits of £120 billion to £160 billion if they are like the regulator is making the right noises on DB schemes. treated in the same way as closed schemes. Guy Opperman: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for 6.15 pm those comments. I will not have the chance to answer in We are in the midst of a pandemic and huge economic detail in closing, but I am very happy to endorse, and shocks, the impact of which we cannot fully predict at repeat as if I were to say the exact same words, the very this time. Is now the time to saddle companies and detailed comments I made at Committee as to the way charities with that extra debt, and for what purpose? in which open schemes will be treated on an ongoing basis. What of individual savers themselves? Can we reasonably expect people potentially to double their personal Wendy Chamberlain: I thank the Minister for that contributions? Surely a more likely outcome from that intervention, but I would ask him again to consider requirement is that people will simply cease to contribute, accepting either amendment 7 or amendment 1, which and that will apply further pressure to the viability of would put that commitment on the face of the Bill. that scheme. We need that reassurance because there is a real There is a real danger that as a result of the deficits, concern about the regulator’s consultation. In other charities—some of which I have mentioned—will go places there appears to be a conflation, in that consultation bust, and that is not a policy that any Government document, of open and closed structures, with references should be promoting, particularly given the support to the same treatment and same risk profile between that the Government have put into the sector during the open and closed schemes. But it is just not possible to course of the pandemic. That would surely be a bad have the same risk profile between an open and a closed policy at any time. As I said earlier, I am encouraged by scheme. the Minister’s statements in Committee, and I thank 75 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 76

[Wendy Chamberlain] divestment for pension trustees. It is very hard to draw a line where the policy ends. Some may claim, or desire, him for recommitting to those in his intervention, but I that they divest from oil and gas, but where does it end? hope he appreciates that we urgently need further There are other sectors that clearly contribute to climate reassurances. I do not see why such provision could not change—whether it be haulage companies, taxi companies, be made in the Bill, as indeed it was when it came from car companies, or aviation companies—so where does it the other place. It would make sure that the regulator end? That causes some confusion for trustees.An investment was acting in a sensible way. I look forward to hearing policy should be put in place at a ground level. the Minister’s response. Thirdly, when compared with engagement as an My first contribution when taking on the role of investment strategy, a divestment approach is just a very DWP spokesperson for my party was on ensuring the weak policy. I say that as somebody who comes from triple lock for the state pension. In that debate, I highlighted fund management and managing an ESG business. As the need to ensure a sustainable state pension, particularly owners of companies, we could call on chief executives given the intergenerational divide emerging for young and chief financial officers to engage on ESG issues people in this country. We should not, through this Bill, such as climate change. We could vote at annual general be potentially driving more people into reliance on the meetings. We had those companies at the table to be able state pension by making personal pension provision to influence them. If we divest, we lose that influence—we unaffordable for individuals or institutions. lose that ability to change and influence a company. Guy Opperman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con): It is campaign that he has waged to persuade the Treasury a great pleasure to speak in this debate today, as it was to have green gilts available for pension funds to invest on Second Reading and in Committee. I would like in is exactly the point that we are seeking? It would specifically to address amendment 16 to clause 124. Let mean businesses and pension funds working in a partnership me start by saying how great it is that we have cross-party with Government and regulators to solve the problems support for policies that push forward our efforts on and the issues that we need to solve to get net zero. climate change. We should all be very proud of the fact Without that partnership, we will actually go backwards, that we are one of the first major countries to legislate not forwards. to become a net zero country by 2050. I have long talked about the influence and power of financial services Gareth Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for his and financial markets to move things forward, but sadly generous remarks and I thank him for his support of I cannot support amendment 16. I will set out three reasons. my campaign to bring about green gilts in this country. The first is the unintended consequences, the second I agree that it is a way in which pension funds can concerns divestment and the third relates to focus. contribute to the climate change effort in a meaningful First, amendment 16 is well-meaning, but it would way, moving billions of pounds of capital towards the have unintended consequences. I fear fund managers goals that everybody across this House really wants to would be limited in what they were able to invest in. I achieve, so I thank him for that intervention. say that because of the limited environmental, social Finally, I fear that, although the amendment is well- and corporate governance data in certain asset classes intentioned, it is poorly focused. In my experience, in certain markets around the world. If we look at trustees want to invest with purpose and according to emerging markets,private equity or in small-cap companies, their values. Likewise, fund managers have, over the ESG data is sporadic at best. It is getting better all the past several years, moved great mountains, a lot of time, but at this point in time the market is not mature money and a lot of effort to incorporate ESG risk into enough for the amendment to apply for managers. I fear most of their investment processes, and I do not believe that managers would be limited, and that would result that any asset manager in the future will be able to in sub-optimal investments and mean that they could survive unless they integrate ESG climate risk as part of not fulfil their fiduciary responsibility. their investment process. Richard Graham: As a trustee of the parliamentary (Kensington) (Con): Is my hon. Friend pension fund, may I highlight that the changes on aware that industry agrees with his position? For instance, page 118 of the Bill on climate change risk are incredibly the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association has stated important and will help encourage trustees and pension that on behalf of industry. funds in general to make investments that are pro- environment, pro-green and pro-climate change? I am Gareth Davies: I am aware that the PLSA has stated absolutely in agreement with my hon. Friend that the that it is concerned about this amendment, for the reasons proposed additional new clause 16, which would require I have described. The second reason why I would agree pension funds to align with the Paris agreement goal, is with the association is my fear that the amendment will a step too far. Does he agree that the Minister should imply to trustees that they have to adopt a policy of focus on that in his summing up as well? divestment. As has been seen over decades, a divestment policy, as well-meaning as it is, does not actually change Gareth Davies: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the things that people are seeking to change. Part of the for his intervention. I agree that the Bill is sufficient in reason is that a stock market is essentially a marketplace, its current form to be able to achieve what we all want so if someone wants to divest, somebody has to invest, to achieve, which is to get pension funds to invest in a and therefore there is a negligible impact on the underlying climate-aware way. company. That is why for tobacco, for climate change The last point that I will make in concluding is and for guns in the United States, the divestment policies around this point on focus. In my experience, it is not adopted by other pension funds just have not worked. I the fund managers or the trustees whom we need to fear that such provision would cause confusion around persuade or to make do anything, but the middle men 77 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 78 and women—the gatekeepers, the investment consultants Devolved government has now been restored in Northern —who typically require a five-year track record and Ireland, and we are pleased to have it in place. On 1 June, £100 million in assets held by fund managers and managed the Northern Ireland Assembly approved the legislative by fund managers. In my experience, that was always consent motion on the Bill, as introduced, and a further the issue. We were running money in a way that was LCM will be necessary to cover amendments to the Bill, really pushing things forward in terms of our climate which the Northern Ireland Minister for Communities targets. We knew that the pension clients really wanted has agreed will be done and should extend this to to invest with us, but, because we could not meet the Northern Ireland. So some things are positive on that. requirements of the investment consultants, we could I have been in contact with a number of pensions not marry the two together. If we use the combined bodies that have expressed concern about the proposals intellect, passion and energy of this House, from all in the Bill. We all know how essential a good pension is, parties, to come up with a solution to that, we could and it is becoming more important with each month. I make great progress. am sure that I am not the only one to have seen the losses in pensions in this year’s statement. I have a Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton): decent understanding of how my pension pays out, but Order. I am going to suspend the House for a short I was listening to the girls in my office and it is clear time—probably five or 10 minutes—to allow some extra that, although my staff members in their 40s and 50s have cleaning to take place. Could Members leave the Chamber, a grasp on their pension, the two staff members in their so that the cleaning can take place? The bell will ring a 20s and 30s do not and they do not seem to be able to minute before we are due to resume. understand just how it works.The older girls say,“I wouldn’t swap my pension but I like to see what is in it,” and they 6.24 pm have already had a look at their pensions to know what Sitting suspended. they have. Many people are wise and astute enough to do that, but others are not and they have no understanding 6.33 pm of what can be done. There is more to doing our best to On resuming— secure our financial future than simply opening a letter— there has to be more than that. Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder referred to new clause 1, which underlines the importance if you could tell the House why there was the necessity of an easily accessible, easy to navigate pensions dashboard for the further cleaning of the Chamber. I understand that is easier to understand than an annual statement. that this is the first time that this has ever happened. Is The Association of British Insurers has said: there anything in particular that the House needs to be “Pensions Dashboards are a necessary addition to Automatic informed about because of that arrangement? Enrolment. More than 10 million people have now been automatically enrolled into workplace pensions through inertia, and will need to Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton): I find their pension pots and make decisions about them.” thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. We We are all probably at that age, Minister, when we have were asked to suspend the House just to ensure that to think about our pension pots, and if we are not doing there was a little bit of extra cleaning. I do not have any so, there is something seriously wrong, because we further information other than that, but I am sure that should be. The ABI went on to say: it is precautionary, and if there is anything further that “Already 1 in 5 adults admit to having lost a pension pot and Members need to be informed of, I am sure that they latest PPI research suggests that there is at least £19.4bn held in will be. pots that consumers have lost track of.” It is horrendous to hear that. Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): First, let me thank all those who have made contributions, which have been Guy Opperman: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back excellent. I thank the Minister for his response and the to the House, as this is the first opportunity I have had hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) to do so. He is rightfully regarded as an institution in for the contribution he made just before me. It is a this place and long may that continue. I hope that he pleasure to speak on this issue. Although I know that will understand that a combination of the pensions this is not the purpose of this Bill, I cannot in all good dashboard, as set out in clause 118, which will give conscience let the occasion go without raising the issue people online access to their pensions, simpler statements, of the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality which the Department is taking forward in respect of Campaign—women, who still want their pension scheme. written statements, and many other pieces of work we Once more, I look to the Minister for a response on are doing to trace individual pensions will make tracking that. down past pensions an awful lot easier. I want to speak to new clause 1 and some of the other amendments, ever mindful of the fact that the Bill provides Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for that response. for territorial extent, as set out in clause 117 and schedule 8, The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that clause 120 and schedule 9, clauses 118, 119 and 129 and 50 million pension pots will be lost or dormant by 2050, schedule 11. Pensions are a devolved matter in Northern and people are vulnerable. We hope that the intervention Ireland, but this is an area where Northern Ireland has he made may allay some of the fears people have. The long maintained parity with Great Britain. There is, in ABI continued: effect, a single systems of pensions across the UK, with “Pensions Dashboards will not only help to find lost pensions many pensions schemes, and indeed the regulator, the and reduce the cost of financial advice, but should also prompt pensions ombudsman, the Pension Protection Fund people to engage more closely with and save more into their and so on operating on a UK-wide basis. pension, aiding consumers to make informed retirement decisions.” 79 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 80

[Jim Shannon] enough about pensions to make decisions and just 4%, or one in 25, said that they would opt out of a pre-booked That is really what we have to be doing—the thrust of guidance session. I welcome the Minister’s response to this debate should be to try to focus that attention. The the intervention; I feel that that might just make the ABI went on: difference for a great many people. “Pensions Dashboards are now woven into nine different In relation to the workplace—[Interruption.] My Government and regulatory policy strategies, including the voice is starting to go; it is going to crack up shortly. It Government’sUK Digital Strategy,the FCA’sRetirement Outcomes is significant that greater numbers of people will have Review and the Cabinet Office’s Dormant Assets Commission.” defined-contribution pension savings as a result of being The ABI also tells us that 60% of 25 to 34-year-olds auto-enrolled into workplace schemes. For these people, would be most comfortable viewing their pensions through achieving financial security and wellbeing in retirement their mobile banking app—because that is the nature of will depend on making well-informed decisions. This is the future—compared with only 11% of those aged a much greater challenge for those who do not get 65-plus, which is probably my generation and thereabouts; impartial guidance or regulated financial advice. I can well 20% of those aged 65-plus would be comfortable receiving remember when my mother took me down, as 16-year- their pension data via post, compared with only 4% of old—that was not yesterday, by the way—to open my 18 to 24-year-olds; and 61% of those aged 55 to 64 would first bank account, and she had me in a pension scheme find it most convenient to view their savings through the at 18. That is many, many years ago— pension provider’s website, compared with 30% of 18 to 24-year-olds. What does that tell us? It tells us that Ms Angela Eagle: Surely not! people have different ways to access their pension, to look at what it means to them and to get the answers Jim Shannon: I am afraid it is. My mother was very that they need. wise—she still is: she is 89 years old now and is even wiser today than she was whenever I was 18. It is always More people in Northern Ireland feel that they have good to have your mum to tell you what to do, even low financial capability—indeed, Northern Ireland has though you might be a lot older. But that is by the way. the lowest proportion of all the regions of the United It is clear that the way that we are doing these things Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Fewer is not as effective as it should be. New clause 1 is essential Northern Irish people describe themselves as “confident to underline the importance of people understanding and savvy consumers”, with 43% saying so, versus their pension and taking control of it, with appropriate the UK average of 52%—so we do fall behind—or as advice, rather than simply thinking, “This is for when highly confident in managing their money,with 26% saying I’m old.” Take it from me: that time comes quicker than so, against the UK average of 37%. Fewer consider one could possibly imagine. themselves to be highly knowledgeable in financial matters, with 10% saying so, against the UK average of 16%. We I conclude with this: the issue is incredibly complex, in Northern Ireland need the necessary advice so that and it needs a complex answer. I look to the Minister to we can decide, collectively,what our pension pots are worth. outline how he believes that issue has been addressed in the Bill. I feel that we need both a robust dashboard and The figures I have outlined suggest that pension compulsory written statements, and I am not content savers in Northern Ireland may appreciate the benefit of that that has been provided for in the Bill. I respectfully a Pension Wise appointment even more than their ask the Minister for that advice and help. We have to get counterparts elsewhere in the UK. Sadly, the DWP, pensions right for everyone, whether they be 18 or 65. FCA and Pension Wise data does not split user stats by We will do it together. location, so we do not know user stats for Northern Ireland; we know only the headline UK-wide stat that 6.45 pm just 14% of pension pots were accessed after the Pension Wise service was used. The Northern Ireland proportion Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con): It is a of current retirees whose main income is the state pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford pension is the same as that for the UK as a whole; (Jim Shannon) and all the other speakers in this thoughtful however, that proportion is predicted to fall back to and well considered debate. It was also a pleasure to 37% for those aged 45 and over and not retired. serve on the Public Bill Committee; it is great to see I was reading through some of the briefings, and one so many of its members in the Chamber today. I pay of them said that the DWP had recently confirmed its tribute to the Clerks and staff on that Committee as intention to base new guidance and regulations on a well as to right hon. and hon. Members across the House “stronger nudge”. I am of a generation that can remember for their work, diligence and patience in taking part in Monty Python and the story that went, “Elbow, elbow, that Committee. wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more,” but in this I am going to focus my comments predominantly on instance we need to say a whole lot more. We look to the new clause 1, which was introduced by the right hon. Minister for more than just a nudge when it comes to Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms)—the Chair of the key points. We hope that Pension Wise guidance the Work and Pensions Committee, on which I also sessions will be available, and I think it will be good for serve. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his people to take them on. In a survey of some 1,000 defined fantastic work in chairing that Committee over the past -contribution pension savers aged 45 to 54, nearly eight six months. He has been an absolutely fantastic and in 10, or 77%, said that they wanted impartial guidance very diligent, hard-working Chair. to help them to understand their pension access options, To focus on the scams point for a minute, I should say yet a larger proportion, 81%, did not know that they that scams often come from the fact that people have were entitled to receive free, impartial guidance from not had advice, and those at not the bottom end but Pension Wise. Fewer than half said that they understood what would perhaps be classed as the normal end of the 81 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 82 market are most exposed by not having access to advice. want to get to—the destination—but it is just the mechanics Given the comments in the Chamber so far, I think we of how we do that. From that perspective, I agree with can all agree with the principle that everyone needs the principle of new clause 1, but I think there is a access to advice. We need to ensure that people are better place for how we do this. I absolutely commend informed as they make these life-changing decisions. the principle behind it—at its core, it is fundamentally From our casework and the evidence that the Select about ensuring that people have access to the right Committee has heard about people who have lost their advice to make informed decisions to ensure they protect savings—the money that they have accrued over years the money and what they have built up through hard and years—we know the impact of not having the work—because it is absolutely essential. advice. We know the importance of ensuring that the I am very conscious of time, but if I may, I will turn advice is there. very quickly to amendment 16 which is to clause 124. I agree in principle with the underlying purpose of My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford the new clause, but I question whether primary legislation (Gareth Davies)—I absolutely commend him, by the is the right place for it. There could be a place for it way, for the work he has done on green finance and the within the secondary regulations that will be needed as green gilt work he has done—covered this so well that part of the process to ensure that people have access to he has taken most of the points I wished to add. correct advice. However, I will just re-emphasise one point he made I absolutely agree with the comments about the Pension about the unintentional consequences particularly of Wise service; we have heard how fantastic and well divestment. received that has been. People have genuinely been Many of the organisations that perhaps would be impacted by their exposure and access to the Pension impacted by this are actually the organisations that we Wise service. There is definitely a role for the service to need to lead on these new green challenges. As part of play—there is no doubt about that at all. The fact that my research, I looked at some of the organisations that 72% of people who access the service change their we might think of as ones that may need to be divested decision shows clearly that advice has to be central to from. We looked at the oil companies like Shell, BP, pension planning as we go forward. Texaco and so on, and the work they have done—for The people most vulnerable to scams are those who example, that of Shell on biofuels, or BP on renewable most need the advice—they do not have humungous energy in homes. I claim no interest—people can google pension pots to fall back on or above-£30,000 pots they it, see it and find it—but I think we risk a real unintentional can transfer; these are ordinary working people who consequence here of actually going backwards and need the advice. I am thinking of the people in my almost shooting ourselves a bit, because by divesting constituency, in places such as Tipton, Wednesbury and from those schemes we inhibit the work that we need to Oldbury—people who have worked for 40 years at solve this climate crisis. CLM Construction in Oldbury, for example. They have In concluding my remarks, I think the principle of paid into a scheme and now want to draw from it; they new clause 1 is absolutely right, but I think there is more are the ordinary working people who rely on the advice. to be done on the mechanics, and the place for this is in the debate on the secondary regulations and making The Minister has given assurances that he will take a sure that we absolutely drill down into this. I am reassured listening approach when considering the secondary by my hon. Friend the Minister’s reassurances on how regulations—I am sure that in summing up he will he is going to approach that. On amendment 16, I think discuss what that means, not that I want to give him any there are some real unintended consequences that, if we more work to do in what will have to be an extensive are not careful, could actually take us backwards, not summing up. I feel that it is there that the spirit of what forwards. the new clause is trying to achieve can really be brought to life.I agree with what many right hon. and hon. Members Ms Angela Eagle: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. have said: there is a wider debate to have about how we Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) in ensure that those on the ordinary end of the scale, who this reasonably consensual debate. do not have humungous pension pots but have worked Madam Deputy Speaker, there is nothing like seeing hard for what they have got, get that advice. men rushing into the Chamber in hazmat suits to ensure The logistical challenges that my hon. Friend the that we are as brief as we possibly can be,even though—and Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) this is no criticism of the Chair—the grouping of these outlined in his intervention—he is not in his place now, amendments means we have rather a lot of things to because of social distancing—can be challenged effectively. refer to in this gigantic group. One of the things I am This is an interesting proposition, and I do commend going to do is to refer only in passing to new clause 1, the right hon. Member for East Ham for the work he has because so much has already been said about it, and to done, because I do think there is a place for it. However, concentrate a bit more of my remarks on the pensions we need to have such debates on secondary regulations dashboard and some of the amendments there, because to really get into the nuts and bolts of how this operates that has not really received much attention in the comments and how this works, so that we can get this right. we have had so far. We also have to remember—this has been picked up There are some themes that are really important to as well—that there is an existing regime with how the bear in mind in this whole group and in the Bill that we FCA operates. It sends out guidance when someone is are discussing today. The first is strengthening consumer two months from their 50th birthday and so on. That is protections, which is what new clause 1 is about, and not to say it is perfect; we know it is not perfect. It is not ensuring that when people are making a decision about advice as would want to see it; it is a fact sheet that probably some of the largest amount of funds they have people are then left to interpret as they wish. It is not laid aside for their entire lives in savings, and they are where we want to get to. I think we agree with where we going to make decisions about what to do with that 83 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 84

[Ms Angela Eagle] that he wants multifarious dashboards to crop up all over the place, some of which are commercially offered, money that are irreparable, they do not get their heads and some of which I think would just confuse the turned by a slick advertising at one end and con artists situation. at the other end, and that they get enough time, space and consideration to make the choice that is right for 7 pm them. Guy Opperman rose— Our pensions landscape is very complex, and it is getting more and more complex as it matures, changes Ms Eagle: The Minister is hopping about on his feet, and evolves. We are left trying to deal in legislation with so I will give way. DB schemes, DC schemes and CDC schemes, which we Guy Opperman: It is hard to hop from a sedentary all welcome, but all these changes and innovations over position, but I will do my level best in future. I accept time make the pensions landscape difficult for people to that the hon. Lady is a former Pensions Minister and navigate. As we all know, consumer protections are speaks with great authority, but the Government feel quite weak, and the introduction of so-called pension that dashboards should be created in the circumstances freedoms in 2014 increased the chances for mis-selling where the customer is, rather than making the customer and scams, so we have to be very careful. That is why I come to them. Even if one did not accept what the support new clause 1. I support any protections that Government said, I specifically rely on the fact that the will make it slightly more inconvenient for people to no. 1 consumer organisation in the country, Which?, shift their money and that will reassure regulators, specifically said that the Government’s view is the right providers and customers of pensions that this decision one on this issue. is the right one for them, because, as we have heard, it is irreparable. Ms Eagle: I thank the Minister for that point. We had I do not agree with those who have said that we have this discussion in Committee, and we are having it again enough protection against scams. The cost of losing a on the Floor of the House. I think it is worth exploring, pension is huge and irreparable. The risks for scammers but within the context that I think dashboards are a and con artists are quite low, but the minimum rewards good idea. are huge. Because our capacity to deal with fraud in this With new amendments, the Opposition are trying to country has been eaten away, meaning that it is not get more information in the dashboard, which the Minister nearly as good as it should be and needs to be improved is trying to keep a bit simpler. The information that our massively, the chances of scammers being caught are amendments would introduce into dashboards includes quite low too. The potential for high rewards from fees, charges, costs and price—information that I would conning people out of their life savings versus the risks say is quite important to consumers who are thinking taken means that we are a magnet for scammers. about where to put their money or whether to switch What we have to do—and what the Bill begins to their money around. In what other area where services do—is try to close some of those loopholes. That is were being bought would we try to hide the price of the what amendments 2 to 5 are about. It is also about service that is being offered in quite this way? People regulating superfunds, which is covered in new clause 6, argue that it will just confuse consumers to know how and creating the new criminal offences that we all much money is being taken out of their funds in charges agreed with in Committee, to try to strengthen regulation, or fees. I would say that the opposite is true. The more put up some real barriers and increase the risk that transparency we have in the dashboard, the better. those who are trying to con people out of their pensions I know that others will speak about investment will be caught. I support amendments 2 to 5, as well as philosophies and amendments 16 to 24, which are also new clause 6, which is about regulating superfunds. in this group, so I will leave that to them. Overall, the The introduction of the pensions dashboard is one of Bill is a good thing. The introduction of CDCs is an the things that will mark the Bill as an important piece extremely good thing. Despite the fact that we are of pensions legislation. I commend the Minister for all having this boxing match about scams and strengthening the work he has done to create the capacity for pensions the rules against them, increased consumer protections dashboards to be introduced, so that information can and increased transparency, I think that everyone on be collected from disparate places and presented in a both sides of the House will note that the Pension way that is meaningful to consumers. We are now trying Schemes Bill, when it becomes law, will take forward to make the pensions dashboard more useful and important some of the work that needs to be done to try to ensure and to ensure that it is introduced in a way that does not that all our constituents, whether they are of a younger throw the baby out with the bathwater. generation or a slightly older one, can look forward to a framework that will guarantee them some reasonable Amendments 11, 13, 14 and 15 are about how the income in retirement. I do not think that anyone on dashboard should work. While I commend the Minister either side of the House would argue with that. for the huge amount of work he has done, he has unfortunately overturned some of the amendments made Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con): It is a in the other place on the dashboard. One of those pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wallasey amendments would have ensured that the first dashboard (Ms Eagle). I welcome her constructive approach and her introduced was the publicly provided objective one, general support for the Bill. I have no formal interest to which would have a year to bed in before other commercially declare, but I should tell the House that my father was offered dashboards were introduced. The other place a consulting actuary for much of his career and went decided that that would be a good thing to do. The on to run a friendly society, so I was brought up on Minister and his Government have decided—he gave us probabilities and portfolios. I did not just learn my explanations in Committee—that it would not be, and timetables; I also learned my mortality tables. 85 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 86

This was my first Public Bill Committee, so I took the Committee, the key principle is informed choices. When opportunity just to listen. It was a highly informative we inform people about their choices, that can drive and very good-natured Bill Committee. I thank the sensible decision making on, for example, consolidation. Minister for that; I thank the Clerks, and I thank all The amendments that seem to circumscribe dashboards Opposition Members and the Scottish National party —for example, amendment 15, 8, 14 and others—are Front Bench for the constructive comments that they not necessary. More than that, they would be frustrated made in Committee. Given that one of my predecessors by the market. The Which? report that I quoted on in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Mr John Golding, once spoke Second Reading said: for over 11 hours in Committee, I think the Committee “It is clear that even if the government was to decide that there should perhaps be grateful that I did not speak, and I should only be a single government-run dashboard, other private note that this debate has to finish by 9 pm as well. sector dashboards would continue to develop outside of the regulated market. These may rely on screen-scraping or other Ms Eagle: I knew John Golding, and he never spoke potentially unsecure forms of transmitting customer data.” for one second longer than he needed to for a particular Alternative products are already springing up, and we political purpose. I know that he spoke for that length cannot hold back the tide like Canute. We have to go of time because he was conducting some parliamentary where the customer is, as the Minister said when intervening manoeuvres that were extremely important for the on the hon. Member for Wallasey. progressive cause. I do not think that we should try to buck the market in regulation. Instead, we should regulate effectively, Aaron Bell: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. and that is what the Bill does. I urge the House to reject Yes, I think Mr Golding successfully pushed the the amendments, although I accept that they are well Telecommunications Bill to the other side of the 1983 meaning. As many hon. Members have said, there is general election, but that election, as she may well real agreement among us about how we should proceed, remember, did not go well for her party. but I do not think that any of the amendments are This Bill makes pensions safer, better and greener. I necessary. I congratulate the Minister on the Bill, and I will briefly turn to some amendments on each of those look forward to the safer, better and greener pensions three topics. Amendments 2 to 5 are on scams. The that we all deserve. right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) acknowledged that those are probing amendments. I Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): I will not repeat the story that I told on Second Reading support new clauses 4 and 5, which I tabled with my of my constituents who suffered from a pension scam—all hon. Friends. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member hon. Members will have similar stories—but those scams for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). This has been are extremely destructive. As my hon. Friend the Member a good-natured debate. We all have particular issues we for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) said, they want to raise in relation to the Bill, but everything has often affect people who have no real experience of been presented in a compelling, interesting and mainly financial matters. At a vulnerable point in their lives, consensual way. they can be taken advantage of, so I welcome the work The pernicious impact of section 75 of the Pensions that has been done, and I welcome the commitments Act 1995 on multi-employer pension schemes, particularly that the Minister has made to work further in this area. plumbers’ pensions, must rate as one of the biggest On the greener side of things, like my hon. Friend the pension injustices of recent years. The litany of devastating Member for West Bromwich West, I cannot add much stories of honest, hard-working men and women who to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member face crippling debts and liabilities, sometimes of hundreds for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), who set of thousands of pounds, is simply heartbreaking. We out the reasons why the Government disagree with the heard another example today from the hon. Member amendment 16. It is an inappropriate use of the legislation. for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who is not As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley in the Chamber. I have had plumbers, including some in (Nigel Mills), on whom I intervened, said, the Government their 60s or even 70s, who have been forced to continue have other ways to make sure that companies meet to work because of the effects of the scheme. They have those targets. We cannot ask pension trustees to make been in tears describing to me what that will do to them those fine decisions. I firmly believe that the Bill is a real and the impact on their life and health. They are on all step forward, but engagement, not divestment, is the sorts of support to try and get through the real concerns way to proceed. and anxieties about possibly losing everything, from I turn principally to dashboards which, for me, are their home and bank balance to their livelihood and the most exciting part of the Bill, enabling the same sort sense of self. It has been a dreadful experience for of transparency, flexibility and, crucially, easy tracking anyone who has been caught up in it. These are people of our pensions as we have all come to expect of our who have worked all their lives, earnestly and honestly current accounts, credit cards and mortgages. We are in paying into their pension scheme, believing that their the information age, and we need to make that information retirement was safe, secure and something to look forward accessible to people, particularly with all the stuff that to, only for it to become a living nightmare. we have heard in Committee and on Second Reading I have been trying to get justice for these plumbers for about the number of jobs and pension schemes that some five years now. I formed the all-party parliamentary people have. Auto enrolment, in particular,enables people group on plumbers’ pensions in an attempt to get this to bring their pensions into one place and perhaps to addressed and resolved. Over the years, we have met consolidate them, which is a real step forward, as it successive Pensions Ministers, including the current empowers people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Minister, with colleagues from all parties, we have secured Delyn (Rob Roberts), who cannot be here today, said in debates in Westminster Hall and on the Floor of the 87 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 88

[Pete Wishart] response to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). I hope that House, and we have brought in a private Member’s Bill the Minister may take a generous view of some of our from my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock amendments, because they are actually very modest and Loudoun (Alan Brown). We have even facilitated amendments that would at least start to improve the brainstorming sessions involving officials from the DWP, situation of those who are facing the biggest liabilities. the pension providers,SNIPEF—the Scottish and Northern There are only about 30 of them. Ireland Plumbing Employers Federation—and some of the trustees, all without being able to address the Guy Opperman: The hon. Gentleman knows that we fundamental problems associated with section 75 of the have looked at this repeatedly, and I have met many of 1995 Act. Here we are, years later,with this still unresolved, the individual plumbers, from Perthshire to Angus, and some plumbers facing the possibility of ruin for and beyond. He refers to my esteemed colleague doing exactly nothing wrong. Richard Harrington, who is no longer in this place. He put forward the Green Paper that looked specifically at I appreciate that the Government have addressed this this point and applied the full force of Government, responsibly, and even helpfully. I congratulate and thank and all the consultations on section 75. There were 853 them for the easements that have been introduced in the responses, including 70 specific responses to the question course of the past few years. But there has been no regarding legislative changes on employer debt. Regrettably, resolution to the central issue, and today there are still as the hon. Gentleman knows, the vast majority sought plumbers in all our constituencies who will be facing no change to the employer debt position. That is the crippling debts and their retirement being made an reason we are in the situation we are in. absolute misery. We know that this is difficult to resolve. We know that the best brains in pensions across the 7.15 pm country have looked at it to try to find a solution. My Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the Minister for reminding plea to the Minister is that we cannot give up: we the House of the work that has been done. I am fully cannot simply desert these people who have done absolutely aware of what was discussed in that Green Paper, and I nothing wrong. If we have not found the solution yet, am aware of the responses. I want to come on to some we must keep on looking for it. We will keep on trying of the longer-term issues, because those were not really to ensure that we do get justice for these people, We addressed in how this was looked at, but that was a cannot leave a certain section of our constituents in decent attempt by the previous Minister to get to the such a hellish limbo in being faced with these demanding heart of this and pull it together. I encourage the constraints and pressures. current Minister not to give up and to look again at our If I could find a couple of words that would adequately amendments—I am going to try to convince him of describe section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995, they would this; we will see how we get on—because they are be “unintended consequences”. There is nothing wrong modest amendments that would help people who are with section 75. It is designed to meet a few demands caught in this nightmare. They are not a total solution, and requirements, and it is actually quite a sensible and but our new clauses would considerably help those who elegant inclusion in the Bill, but the unintended have been caught up in all this. consequences for these multi-employer pension schemes New clause 5 would simply permit employers in a have been absolutely and utterly devastating. Since 2005, pension scheme closed to future accrual to apply for a any employer who has left the scheme or prompted a deferred debt arrangement provided that they meet all trigger event is required to pay the section 75 debt. That the other tests. It would support those who are still debt is calculated on a buy-out basis that assumes that trading prior to section 75 being triggered to use the the whole scheme has been bought out by an insurance easements before the closure of the scheme to be included. company, but more than that, the accrual value that the New clause 4 would allow the flexibility to waive a debt insurance companies would put on to it is real testament in certain circumstances to allow an employer to exit to that value. They are then required to pay part of the from a pension scheme where the debt is below a de orphan liabilities of past employers who may have minimis threshold, which the new clause would set at become insolvent or left the scheme before 2005 and 0.5% of the fund value. who did not pay their own section 75 debts. This means Those are sensible and modest proposals that would that those who remain in the scheme are required to not cost the world to enact and would leave the integrity pick up the debt of others who have been able to leave it of these pension schemes intact. We know that the without that burden being placed on them. Under no Minister is likely to oppose them, but I hope that he has circumstances can this be thought to be right. a think about it, and perhaps there are things that he Some Pensions Ministers—I give credit to the can do in subsequent legislation based on what is proposed. Department, which has looked at this very seriously—have I know that he recognises the difficulty in all this, but he gone the extra mile to try to have this resolved, but I will offer no further easements beyond those already want to mention one of them who was getting to the provided for in legislation. He also says that the heart of it—Richard Harrington. Richard did a huge “current employer debt system is intended to be equitable to all amount of work on this. He worked diligently on it, employers”––[Official Report, Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee, putting energy, resource and commitment into trying to 5 November 2020; c. 122.] find a solution. I am pretty certain that if Richard was and insists that schemes must be fully funded, but still in government he would be closer to finding some setting a de minimis write-off at 0.5% will have a sort of resolution. I have only had one meeting on this negligible impact on any of these arrangements. with the current Minister, but I detected an enthusiasm There are other multi-employer schemes where there from him to try to get this resolved. I will overlook may be issues. It is staggering that there have been so some of the comments that he made in Committee in few issues with these multi-employer schemes outside 89 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 90 the plumbers’ pension, but I say to the Minister that this all those who try to plunder the pension pots of hard- is more of a ticking time-bomb than a sleeping lion. working employees, which was very much what happened There are consequences to come. Government failure to in both cases. get this resolved when they had the opportunity with The campaigners and members of the Pensions Action plumbers’ pensions will come back to haunt them at Group, which include many former Allied Steel and some point in the future. Introducing easements and Wire employees, have explained clearly—I am sure it partial solutions is all very well, but if the central issue has been spoken of many times in this House—how remains unaddressed, there will be consequences for they lost the pensions they put into and expected to everyone involved in these schemes. receive in retirement. This has affected workers from I will never forget the meeting when I was first made across the country: not only former workers at the aware of this issue. I was utterly horrified that this level Allied Steel and Wire plant in my constituency, but in of debt was stalking plumbers like some sort of malicious locations such as Sheerness in and in other businesses, apparition. I said to them then that I would do everything such as the shelving giant Dexion, which were also hit. possible to ensure that this was addressed. Five years Those workers were helped and supported by the financial later, we have not been able to do that. It is now all assistance scheme set up by the Labour Government in down to the Minister. He can do something to lessen the early 2000s. That was followed by the establishment this burden on honest, hard-working men and women, of the Pension Protection Fund, which still exists today or we can come back here in a few years with this misery to step in to ensure workers’ accrued defined benefit still in place and this injustice still not put right. I still pensions are safeguarded when employers collapse. A hope that he will consider the amendments that we have fundamental issue, however, is that under the terms of tabled this evening. the protection scheme, pension income based on service prior to 1997 is not eligible to be increased in line with inflation, unlike post-1997 service. The pension income (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/ of 140,000 workers who built their pension pre-1997 Co-op): I rise to address a number of issues. First, let has not been protected from rising consumer prices. me say that I fully support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends—amendment 16 and others—on climate I want to name the individuals who have campaigned change. With respect to some of the comments that resolutely on this issue for many years: John Benson, were made earlier, we need much more radical thinking Phil Jones and many others. Alongside other Members, on this if we are to see the types of fundamental shifts I have been with them to Downing Street and elsewhere that we need in our economy, not just in this country to take their case. Essentially, they have devoted their lives but globally—recognising, of course, that pensions are to making steel, making this country great and supporting invested globally—to achieve the kind of action that is our infrastructure projects,yet they have been denied dignity needed to deal with the scale of the climate emergency. in their retirement. Tragically, many are sadly passing That will affect the generations to come, just as, if we do away without having received what they were entitled not get pensions right, the generations to come will not to. They point out, quite rightly, that the type of restrictive have the resources they thought they would receive. legislation that has existed around their circumstances does not apply to, for example, the pensions of Members I want to focus my remarks on new clause 1 and of Parliament who were elected prior to 1997, many of amendment 14, which show the importance of improved whom have moved on to the other place. We need to guidance and consumer protections, and the clauses in think about justice and equity in all these matters, the Bill that relate to the valuations of pensions schemes. particularly as we enjoy very generous pension settlements. These issues all matter and the protections—many Many financial assistance scheme members currently introduced on a cross-party basis—are so crucial because receive only 90% of their restricted pension. That was of the scandals and scams that many right hon. and what was achieved by the scheme and the agreement hon. Members from across the House have referred to. under the previous Labour Government. Unfortunately, A range of measures are needed to clear up the weaknesses because of the lack of indexation many are seeing their in our pensions systems and pensions regulation, which actual income drop below the 50% redress required have led to huge injustices. under Hampshire v. PPF in September 2018. I recently I want to talk briefly about two injustices that have spoke to a number of them and asked them to explain affected people in my constituency over many years: the how the situation had affected them and their families. Allied Steel and Wire pensioners and the Roadchef We have heard today of many other such instances, employees. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for which not only have financial implications but cause Neath (Christina Rees), and my hon. Friends the Members emotional and family strain. I want to quote some for Birmingham, Erdington (), for Oxford of their own words, because they bear strong witness to East () and for Stalybridge and Hyde the reality. One worker, who left school in 1961, aged (Jonathan Reynolds) on the Front Bench, for their work 15, and started working at the steel company, told me, to support action on these issues, in particular the “For some years, the company paid into the pension meeting that we had recently with Allied Steel and Wire scheme. I myself in those early years did not contribute, pensioners from my constituency.I also thank the Minister, but then the ASW pension scheme was formed.” The who has been in conversations about this case with my workforce were called to the canteen on a number of hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington. I occasions for meetings with the company’s directors am grateful to him for agreeing to meet us to discuss it and told of the plan regarding the new pension scheme, further. I hope we can find the time for that in the weeks which they were told had the backing of the UK to come, because it needs to be looked at. It is a historic Government. The workforce were given all sorts of injustice that has affected many, many people who have assurances that “it would secure a comfortable retirement waited many years for it to be resolved. The Secretary for themselves and their families, and everyone to my of State said on Second Reading that we need to tackle knowledge agreed this was the right thing to do.” 91 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 92

[Stephen Doughty] Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing): I hope that we can manage the rest of the debate without We then fast-forward to 2002 when shift teams were a formal time limit, because the debate flows better called to the conference room and told by one of the without one. I note that the Minister has been asked to receivers that the company would close and they would deal with a variety of subjects at the end of the debate. lose their jobs. One colleague had tears rolling down If Members would like the Minister to have time to their face. The receiver told them, “The pensions we address their concerns, I implore them to speak for no had saved and worked for were safe as they were not more than seven or eight minutes. If that is the case, we touching those funds”. One worker said, “I went home will manage without a time limit and there will be time after my shift had finished and told my wife I had lost for the Minister to respond to the debate. my job but the pension was safe, only to find out days later that there was a shortfall and that we could lose in (North ) (Con): Thank you, the region of 85% of the pension. It put me on the verge Madam Deputy Speaker. I will cut my speech down of a nervous breakdown, and at one point I thought I from the hour or so that I was planning. would go over the edge. After all those years working in It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff heavy industry with noise, dust, fumes and unsociable South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and his powerful hours, I have nothing to look forward to.” and moving speech. It has been a privilege to speak on Unfortunately, I could recount case after case from Second Reading, in the Public Bill Committee and now Allied Steel and Wire pensioners. It is only a matter of on Report. It is the first time, as a new MP, that I have natural justice that, as well as ensuring that such scandals seen a Bill through all its stages. never happen again, as measures in the Bill seek to do —and as much reform since that time has attempted to 7.30 pm do, to ensure guidance and protections—we must remember I have always been interested in talking through new those who did not and will not benefit from these changes. topics with my children at bedtime reading. As both my I look forward to discussing that case with the Minister. wife and I are exciting accountants, I want to thank Many Members across the House have signed early-day my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme motion 802 on the Roadchef scandal, which has been (Aaron Bell) for giving me the idea of teaching them going on for nearly 30 years and has involved 4,000 about mortality tables as something for us to get our low-paid workers who saw millions illegally transferred teeth into. from their funds and then £10 million taken in taxes. I I suppose the real question is how we make pensions express my sadness at the recent death of my constituent relevant to people in their busy lives so that they do not Tim Warwick, who was the company secretary who put them off for another year. How do we make them exposed the Roadchef shares scandal perpetrated by important to people so that they sit up and take notice the former chief executive. I pay tribute to the former of them? Well, we do exactly what this Bill is aiming to Member of Parliament for Monmouth, Huw Edwards, do. We make them safer, so that crimes against people’s and the GMB trade union—I declare an interest as largest financial assets can be punished. Representing a member of the GMB—who have campaigned on this an older demographic in , where, often, issue for many years. Sadly—and as we saw with the people’s pension schemes are their largest financial assets, Allied Steel and Wire pension scandal—Tim Warwick I know that my constituents will certainly be pleased that and others died waiting for clarity from HMRC about the regulator now has the teeth to tackle the problems. what tax they or the trust should be liable for, despite We make pensions better, as has been said, and the Parliament’s clear intention that such employee benefit pension dashboard is a move in the right direction. It schemes should be tax free. Will the Minister therefore will really transform us and take us into the 21st century, give us an update—either in his wind-up, or perhaps he because we will have the ability to manage something—if could write to me—on the latest position of the DWP we cannot measure something, we cannot manage it, so and HMRC on this matter, which has been of great this is a real step in the right direction. concern to Members across the House? That is one of We also make pensions greener. As I mentioned on the injustices that led us to the point of needing to make Second Reading, we know that if we go in the direction the types of changes outlined in the Bill and the many of making pension trustees consider climate change as amendments to it. a material financial risk for member investments, that Many of the amendments and proposals put forward will help the entire industry as we move towards our net are about increasing the transparency, safety and security zero obligations. Finally, we have the leadership of the of our pensions, which we all want to see, as well as Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my tackling scams and injustices in the pensions system. I hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), add my support to the amendments tabled by my colleagues whose boundless energy and enthusiasm for this Bill on the Front Bench and by my right hon. Friend the has got us to this stage. We should all be commending Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the Chair of his efforts to get us here. the Work and Pensions Committee. In that spirit of I will comment on just a few areas. I recognise why tackling injustice, we need to recognise the damage new clause 1 is important. I grew up with the mantra of done by robbing people of their life savings and of their personal responsibility, which is fairly apt here, because, and their family’s future. They paid in, they expected to besides my experience of looking after the company get something out, and they have not. I mentioned two pension scheme in the outside world before I ended up examples, but there are still far too many injustices for in this place, I always found that advisers were particularly many pensioners. I hope that, in a spirit of cross-party proactive and open and willing to engage with employees working, the Minister and others will continue to try to about their retirement planning. I think that there are find justice for all those affected, and particularly those already provisions, information and interventions to affected by the ASW and Roadchef scandals. outline the options. The Department for Work and 93 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 94

Pensions recently published a policy statement, which the rest of the world, presenting issues of food insecurity included measures on how to take up free and impartial and water shortages, and conflict or displacement. It is guidance. imperative that legislation going through this House is I shall be slightly tongue in cheek about new clause 3. responsive to that climate crisis, and it must meet our I will probably be in trouble for saying this, but whenever international obligations, including those of the Paris the DWP brings in new procedures, the average finance climate agreement and our commitment to limit the director always feels slightly concerned and thinks, “Oh, global temperatures increase to 1.5° C. no, what have we got to implement now in our businesses?” It is crucial, therefore, that the £3 trillion locked into I remember the quagmire of auto-enrolment. That was UK pensions today is mobilised to build that green met with some dread, but, of course, it turned out to be recovery and meet that climate challenge, and to protect absolutely the right thing to do, and it has been a the future health of our people and planet and the monumental success in this country. We got through prosperity that we all want to see and pass on to the realtime information, but then when I needed to avoid next generation. Making Tax Digital, I had to become an MP. Seriously, though, in my humble opinion, imposing Guy Opperman: I am listening to the hon. Lady’s more procedures and bureaucracy on businesses, especially speech with great interest, and I am just wondering at the moment, is something that our small and medium- whether she is aware that the ESG—environmental, sized enterprises, which make up the backbone of this social and governance—regulations came into force country, can really do without. We do not need further only eight weeks ago and clause 124 specifically addresses red tape and procedures. The Government are already the matters that she is outlining, and more particularly dealing with this issue of how small pots can be consolidated that we published in August specific action on tackling as part of the further reporting, and I am sure the Minister climate risk and improving the governance of occupational will make a comment on that in his summing up. pension schemes. That is exactly what the consultation Finally, as the MP for North Norfolk and a member is all about. of the Environmental Audit Committee who has since his election to this place, alongside a quintet of Norfolk Anna McMorrin: I thank the Minister for his intervention, and Suffolk MPs, pushed to improve the environmentally but, frankly, it does not go far enough, which is why I damaging effects of connecting our wind farms to the am speaking to these amendments. national grid, I absolutely have to make a comment on The previous speaker, the hon. Member for North amendments 16 to 24. This is, as we have heard before, a Norfolk (Duncan Baker), is a member of the Environmental clear case of the theory not delivering on the reality. Audit Committee. I was a member of that Committee What we need here is partnership between businesses in the last Parliament, and there was an inquiry into and pension trustees to invest in green renewable greening finance, chaired by Mary Creagh. We found technologies like the wind farms off my coasts in that the UK’s financial investment chain was structurally Weybourne, Sheringham and Happisburgh—parts of incentivised to prioritise short-term profits rather than the country, Madam Deputy Speaker, where I am sure long-term issues including the climate crisis. That needs you have holidayed in many times before and will, I to change. Long-term sustainability must be factored into hope, again in future—not a set of restrictive governance financial decision making, and our report recommended criteria, which would most likely cause more divestment mandatory climate risk reporting and a clarification in in green initiatives than a willingness to embrace and law that pension trustees have a duty to consider long-term comply. sustainability, not just short-term returns. This is a great Bill. It pushes pension governance and transparency,not to mention investment in green initiatives, We also emphasised in that report that enforcing forward to the next level, and I commend it to the those recommendations would push climate change House. further up boardroom agendas, where it is seriously lacking at the moment. We found through our inquiry Anna McMorrin: I rise primarily to speak in support that less than half of the 25 largest pension providers of amendments 16 to 24. discussed climate risk at board level. Their pension schemes, including those of Aviva, Lloyds Bank and HBOS, were The climate crisis remains one of the greatest challenges, all considered to be less engaged than peers among the if not the greatest challenge, that we face. We are rightly top 25, so I am particularly pleased to see that Aviva has focused at the moment on dealing with the pandemic been instrumental in supporting this amendment. and the pressures that that entails, but we cannot afford to lose sight of the growing threat of climate breakdown Disclosure is vital in driving awareness that pensions and the risks it continues to pose. may be invested in fossil fuel projects, fast fashion, deforestation and extraction. Driving that awareness We stand now at the crossroads between complacency out there about where their money is going means that and inaction, which locks us potentially into a future of people can take control of their pension decisions and climate chaos, and bold action that combines expertise make informed choices. Pension funds risk seeing assets and resource and can minimise climate risk, help build become worthless unless they wake up to the climate resilience and jobs for the future, and allow our society crisis. The former Governor of the Bank of England to emerge stronger and more equal. We need climate and current UN special envoy for climate action, Mark action to be embedded across all sectors of society, but Carney, has said that we must particularly in finance. “align finance with society’s values…This will help deliver the No one is immune to the shifting seasons or the world that our citizens demand and that future generations deserve.” increasing severity and frequency of extreme weathers. Droughts or flooding that impact either one community He said it could be or one continent will inevitably reverberate throughout “the greatest commercial opportunity of our time.” 95 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 96

[Anna McMorrin] sustainable and ethical way is the right approach, and that is the one that the Government are taking. Mandatory It is critical that the changes come into effect as early targets would, in my view, undermine the duty that as possible, rather than just 2050 or sooner, if they are pension trustees have to invest in the best interests of to correct the catastrophic trajectory of our climate. We the people whose pensions they are investing. must go further. Amendment 16 would make provision for current and future Governments to significantly 7.45 pm strengthen the Bill through secondary legislation. We stand at the brink of climate chaos the likes of which we The amendments would also have very little impact have yet to experience, but which unfortunately may on reducing emissions. Pension funds would be forced become all too familiar. If we do not take the necessary to sell their high carbon stocks to others who have no action now, I am afraid that we will not get the future regard for environmental concerns, doing absolutely our children deserve to see. nothing to get us to net zero. Instead, we should work together to nudge firms towards a greener future. We Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con): It is a pleasure to have already seen this in the action that the Government follow the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna have taken, as well as some corporates. Earlier this year, McMorrin), and it is good to see so many great for example,BP—traditionally an oil and gas company—set contributions from hon. and right hon. Members from its own target for getting to net zero, and many more are across the House. Pensions are a life asset—something doing this too. More than 70% of large pension schemes that we build up over decades—and getting the policies are already going above and beyond the minimum legal right and working across parties is vital, so it is fantastic requirements. to see such unity and cross-party working on many of We have seen the great work that the Government are the issues contained within the Bill. doing, such as making ESG regulations and now As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, the Bill introducing mandatory climate change reporting. We makes our pensions safer, better and greener. I will need to work together in partnership with businesses, focus my contribution today on that final point: pension not against them, to get to net zero. policy becoming greener. Tackling climate change and In conclusion, it is for those reasons, among many getting to net zero is undoubtedly one of the country’s others, that I will support the Government today. I biggest challenges, and it is a top priority for me. The know just how hard the Minister has worked on the clock is ticking, and we all need to take action, from big Bill, alongside his colleagues, and I thank him for his corporates right down to the actions we take as individuals. efforts. Tackling climate change is, of course, of crucial In September, I was delighted to welcome the Pensions importance and the Bill most certainly marks the next Minister to Haworth in my constituency to visit Airedale step in our journey to reach net zero. Springs, a fantastic local manufacturing business in the Worth valley. It supplies mechanical springs to UK Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): It is manufacturers such as Brompton Bikes. Crucially, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Keighley innovative, and a green business, too. The roof of its (Robbie Moore). I noticed that he mentioned cross-party factory has more than 100 solar panels, helping to working, so on that basis I look forward to him voting supply its energy needs and power the business, and I with the SNP tonight when we press some of the want to see firms across our country adopting those amendments to a vote. I very much appreciated that kinds of innovative practices. early commitment. Our pension funds have trillions of pounds invested I rise to speak to new clauses 4 and 5, tabled by my in assets under management, and that pension power hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil can help us work towards achieving net zero, because Gray)—I have also put my name to them. In January when someone saves money into pensions, the pension 2018, I introduced a private Member’s Bill on multi- provider takes the money and invests it in order to employer pension schemes, including provision for the secure a long-term return for retirement. When those protection of unincorporated businesses. The Bill was savings are in sustainable and ethical investments, such intended to correct what I saw as the unintended as businesses adopting similar practices to Airedale consequences of the section 75 amendments, which Springs, the pension can play its part by helping not were legislated in 2005. Like many private Member’s only with retirement but with climate change. Bills, it did not go anywhere, so tonight I am keeping a The changes legislated for through the Bill open up a promise to the plumbers of my local Scottish and world of possibilities for our pensions to be invested in Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers’Federation branch. new and innovative technologies for the future, such as I promised that I would do all I can to try to get wind power, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage— legislative changes for a solution to the section 75 debt technologies that help create jobs and aid the transition issue, which has adversely affected the plumbing and towards net zero. The Bill means that for the first time, mechanical services industry pension scheme. pension schemes will be able to be required to take the It is disappointing that nearly three years down the Government’s net zero targets into account, as well as line since I introduced my Bill the reality is that we are the goals of the Paris climate agreement. no further forward. It is also just over four years since I want to take a moment to address some of the my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire amendments before the House. On amendments 16 (Pete Wishart) first raised the matter in a Westminster to 24, the reality is that the Government are already Hall debate. As he pointed out earlier, the then Minister taking powers that will require trustees to set targets for pledged to find a solution to the problem. We are still their management of climate risk. So surely an approach waiting, despite the argument that there has been some whereby we nudge pensions towards investing in a progress over the years. I put on the record my thanks 97 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 98 to SNIPEF and the Plumbing Employers Action Group He also stated that for their assistance in tweaking the amendments to try to reflect ministerial comments that were made in “the new clause would weaken the protections contained in the current deferred debt arrangement system. We need to balance Committee. the needs of the affected employers with the risks to scheme From 1995 until further changes in 2005, the plumbing members and other employers.”––[Official Report, Pension Schemes pension fund was assessed on a minimum funding basis. Public Bill Committee, 5 November 2020; c. 122.] When it was valued like that, the scheme was deemed fully funded and therefore any employer leaving the On the face of it, those are reasonable sentiments, but scheme did so without detriment to the overall scheme. the issue is that so much of this debt—up to 60% of As we now know, the 2005 changes led to the scheme it—is orphan liabilities. There is an inherent unfairness being assessed on an insurance buy-out basis, which has in the way that the debts have been assessed, accumulated caused the current issues. Those issues have been and attributed. We need to find solutions, rather than exacerbated, because those who left in compliance with argue about ifs and buts as a way out of doing so. the then rules on the old assessment did not accrue or Otherwise, financially strong businesses can still be owe any debts, but on the new basis, they have now stuck with a huge, often unpayable debt, which takes a created liabilities that the remaining employers have to grave personal toll on the individuals involved. pick up. Even now, the scheme is close to being fully While there are some options for managing or delaying funded if it was still assessed on an ongoing basis, section 75 liabilities available to those currently trading, which shows that changes should be possible. Given there is little help available to those who have already that the UK Government will not allow a change to the retired. Our new clauses try to strike the right balance. buy-out assessment process, surely we need to look at The adjustments proposed in the revised new clause 4 the modest changes proposed in new clauses 4 and 5. are designed to narrow the focus of the amendments Nobody is arguing against the principle of ensuring proposed in Committee to make it clearer what factors that a pension pot is sustainable. We understand the pension scheme trustees or managers should take into need to minimise risk to the taxpayer in terms of the account when considering the application of de minimis Pension Protection Fund having to pick up any slack. discretion, and to make it clear that de minimis discretion However,the stark reality is that unless some amendments should not be to the detriment of the pension scheme to legislation are made, many individuals will be made overall. That hopefully addresses some of the Minister’s bankrupt. Surely we have a duty, as legislators, to concerns about fairness. prevent that. This is individual employers who were doing the right thing for their employees at the time, to The Minister said that 0.5% in itself might be a small ensure that their employees had a healthy pension in threshold, but there is concern about the cumulative effect their retirement. of a number of 0.5% disregards. We need to stop finding Over the years, Ministers have often referred to reasons not to do something. The additional stipulations “easements”. However, statutory easements do not cover in new clause 4 should give added comfort in that all situations—in particular, where an employer has regard, particularly the non-detriment aspect of the retired or ceased trading or has triggered a section 75 overall scheme. debt prior to the closure of the pension scheme to New clause 5 would permit employers in a pension future accrual. As my hon. Friend the Member for scheme closed to future accrual to apply for a deferred debt Perth and North Perthshire said, there is a small group arrangement providing that they meet the other statutory of some 30 retired unincorporated ex-employers for tests. This would allow a deferred debt arrangement to whom no easements have ever applied. They are unable be put in place where an employer triggered section 75 to use a deferred debt arrangement as that is only before scheme closure but did not have a DDA in place. available for limited companies, and in any event, the Although the trigger for the deferred debt arrangement scheme closed for future service in June 2019, meaning happened pre-closure, the employer must still meet the that the deferred debt arrangements cannot be used by statutory test for a DDA; in other words, an employer a closed scheme. In addition, having been unincorporated must still be trading and have an ongoing contractual businesses that have now ceased trading, they cannot commitment to the scheme. This is needed to support apportion their debt to another business or person, so employers who are still trading and otherwise trapped they have no easements or recourse available to them at and forced to continue trading, unable to sell on or this moment in time. transfer ownership of the company. Due to a failure of notification, this group did not even know that they had debts until it was too late for I say to the Minister that we need to remember that them. The average debt that this group faces is some some people are literally working themselves to death, £500,000, with the highest being £1.2 million. Nobody unable to retire. I have constituents who are unable to benefits if these people are made bankrupt. The reality stop working because of the section 75 debt and liability is that, if they are made bankrupt, the total debts will that hangs over them. A couple of years ago, a medium- not be recovered. Critically, the pension fund will not be sized company in my constituency stopped trading, but materially financially stronger even if these individuals it is a safe bet that the individual who is the owner of are pursued and they lose their homes and are made that company still has a section 75 debt issue remaining. bankrupt. Such punitive action is in no one’s interest. Action is required. As my hon. Friend the Member for That is why we want these modest changes to be made. Perth and North Perthshire said, it would be great if we In Committee, the Minister stated: could just make some progress tonight and if the “The new clause would be unfair to those employers previously Government supported these modest amendments. Just connected with the scheme who have already paid their section 75 think of the relief that this could bring to many individuals. debt”.––[Official Report, Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee, If the Government are not willing to do that, I look 5 November 2020; c. 123.] forward to hearing what their solution is instead. 99 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 100

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): I am grateful to be the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and this called and to have the opportunity to speak briefly in evening has been the need to try to avoid unintended this important debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the consequences. That is a particularly important mindset hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), to approach this with given that the consequences of all who made several important points. that we are putting into legislation this evening will The Bill seeks to introduce a number of measures potentially last for decades, and the decisions that we aimed at protecting savings and providing simpler oversight take will affect people’s quality of life and financial of pension savings. This includes the introduction of opportunities in retirement. It is worth bearing that in pension dashboards,collective defined contribution schemes mind when approaching the Bill, and when we consider and new powers for the Pensions Regulator to tackle any well-meaning assurances that we might get from the irresponsible management of private pension schemes. Government Front Bench in lieu of the actual substantive These are important steps forward and they are long changes that have been asked for in the amendments overdue. In particular, I welcome the strengthening of and new clauses. consumer protections against scams, as I know many examples of residents in Newport West who have been 8 pm victims of these scams and have not only lost so much There are three issues in particular that I will return to, money, but been deeply affected by the scams for years the first of which relates to amendment 8 and dashboards, after the event. which I think are a fine innovation. We know the I am delighted that many of my noble Friends in the difficulty sometimes of keeping track of pensions that other place were able to secure some important amendments are accumulated over a lifetime, particularly when that to the Bill—in particular, the amendments that require working lifetime is no longer spent in just a few jobs, trustees and managers to take into account the Paris and someone picks up several pensions over a career. agreement and key domestic climate targets in their Dashboards can collate information that is informative overall governance and disclosure of climate change and impartial. If, however, that information is provided risk and opportunities. This is the first time that climate in circumstances where there is a commercial interest change has featured in domestic pensions legislation before the system is bedded in, it creates the risk of and that is to be welcomed. needless policy churn. Such churn might be in the I urge Ministers and Government Back Benchers to interests of advisers, and perhaps even of some providers, support Labour’s efforts to mobilise billions of pounds but it is unlikely to be in the interests of the policy towards the vital and timely effort to tackle climate holders and consumers. The potential for mis-selling change through pension funds. Given that Ministers refuse under those circumstances is, or ought to be, obvious, to support the amendment in the name of the shadow and is surely antithetical to the objective of bringing in Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge dashboards. and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), on asking pension funds The second point that I wish to return to is on to develop strategies to help to meet our obligations amendment 7 and defined-benefit schemes. The point under the Paris agreement, I hope that we will receive has been made by many speakers throughout the passage an explanation of how they expect to achieve their goal of the Bill, and by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 or sooner. that defined-benefit schemes, which remain open to new The other place also forced the Government to amend members, require a very different investment approach the Bill to guarantee a publicly owned pensions dashboard from those schemes that are closed to new members or free at the point of use and available to everyone. I have that are not near to maturity.There have been contradictory called for that before, as has the shadow Minister, and it messages, I am sorry to say, from the Pensions Regulator is a demand that many residents from across Newport on the consultation when it comes to alleged de-risking West have raised with me in recent weeks and months. and whether a class of beneficiaries from defined-benefit The changes contained in the amendment would ensure pension schemes should have their interests prioritised that consumers are protected and that they do not make over those of others. To our mind, there is no good poorly informed or hasty decisions when they see their reason not to put in the Bill a suitable steer from the pension information for the first time. I hope that the Minister about the need for a different approach for Minister will welcome that amendment. schemes that are open, but I suspect that he is reluctant to do so. I therefore seek an early assurance in his Finally, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the summing up that, although it may not be in the Bill, he Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who spoke will give a prompt direction to that effect at the earliest earlier. He has worked hard on these issues and is a man opportunity. of wisdom and experience. I support his new clause 1, which would set up opt-out appointments with Pension Finally, on new clauses 4 and 5 and the plumbers’ Wise for pension scheme members five years prior to pension scheme, I am also a vice-chair of the all-party their retirement date, because this is a point at which parliamentary group for plumbers’ pensions. We have scheme members are so vulnerable to transfer advice heard eloquent testimony from my hon. Friends the that is not in their best interest or to tax scams. This is Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) so important for the people who need sound guidance and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and and advice before they take their pensions. the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) The Bill is to be broadly welcomed and I urge Ministers about the impact that this issue is having on many to accept all efforts to make it stronger, more effective plumbers who have sought only to do the right and long-lasting. thing through their businesses, and provide for their employees. Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP): I rise to support I know that the Minister is not unsympathetic to the amendments 7 and 8 and new clauses 4 and 5 in my plight of those who find themselves on the wrong end name and those of others. A recurring theme throughout of a section 75 debt under these circumstances. I certainly 101 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 102 take the view that those who are on the wrong end of getting guidance as they near retirement age.Unfortunately, that section 75 debt have been very poorly served at I am yet to be convinced that any of that does what new various points by the advice and guidance that they clause 1 would do, which would see the DWP writing to have been given and the way that the scheme has been pension scheme members, or their survivors five years managed. Although we clearly do not want to create adverse prior to their reaching the age of eligibility with a unintended consequences in other schemes, it is worth scheduled time and date for a pensions guidance bearing in mind that this particular scheme has a section appointment. Ministers would then have to write annually 75 debt of £7.5 million, in the context of a scheme that to that person until that appointment was taken up, or is fully funded and has £2.2 billion at its back. That debt their desire to opt out was confirmed. That is far more could be waived by the trustees, if they were allowed to, robust than what exists at present and seems to deliver at no detriment to the remaining members. a much stronger possibility of someone taking the In seeking to resolve these unique circumstances, we appointment than the stronger nudge trials have evidenced. have spoken about extending the deferred debt, in new It is worth repeating the point made by the right hon. clause 5. Also, proposed new sub-paragraph (h)(i) of Member for East Ham in his strong speech, which cited regulation 2, in subsection (2)(b) of new clause 4, would the MaPS stronger nudge trials and showed that there ensure that the scope of any write-off is restricted to was only a very small increase in the number of people those who would have incurred the liability for a section 75 who went on to have that Pension Wise appointment. debt before the passing of that amendment, which would The DWP claimed that it significantly increased the effectively put a firewall around the adverse consequences uptake of Pension Wise guidance but, as I said in and moral hazard of seeking to apply it to other schemes Committee, that is pure spin. The outcome of the where the circumstances do not justify doing so. stronger nudge trials— In conclusion, to do nothing about this would be a missed opportunity. If the Minister is not minded to Guy Opperman: I just want to correct one point, accept these amendments this evening, I very much hope which I was going to try to deal with in more detail he will use his undoubted knowledge and ingenuity to later. The claim has repeatedly been made that this is help find a solution that can help to bring this nightmare “spin”, but if one studies the stronger nudge behavioural to an end for the plumbers and their families, who have trial, one sees that more than a quarter of the people done absolutely nothing other than try to do their best who contacted their provider in the trial had already and the most responsible thing by those they employed. received pension advice or guidance in the last year and therefore were excluded from the sample. So this cannot Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP): It is a pleasure be seen in the context of a simple figure that keeps being to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon restated, as the hon. Gentleman has just done. (Richard Thomson), whose helpful, informed and persuasive speech matched the characteristics he brought Neil Gray: The fact remains, and the Minister has not to the Committee stage in support of the work we did rebuked the point I made in Committee, that the stronger there—I thank him for his efforts. nudge managed to get successful appointments to move As I said on Second Reading, we broadly support the from 3% to 11% of cases. That is not a significant Bill, but it could do with some sprucing up in certain improvement. A stronger nudge is just not going to be areas. Sadly, we did not get far in Committee; in fact, enough, which is why we argued during the passage of the Bill took a step backwards from some of the good the 2018 Act for an opt-out guidance system. Now we work that had been done in the other place, particularly are back to looking at this again. We still support that on a lead-in for commercial dashboards and dashboard approach and new clause 1 would deliver it. financial transactions—that was taken away—as well as Colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members on the measures providing reassurances to those involved for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), for in open DB schemes. Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Gordon I will turn to those shortly, but first let me deal with and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy new clause 1, which stands in the name of the Chair of Chamberlain), have passionately and eruditely explained the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East why we have given such a focus to the so-called plumbers’ Ham (Stephen Timms), and has been signed by Members pension amendments in new clauses 4 and 5. I look on both sides of the House, including me. I concur with forward to hearing the Minister’sresponse to the compelling what he said in setting out the reasons why this is so arguments that my colleagues have made, but he should important. I also agree with much of what was said by be reminded that these new clauses were arrived at with the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) in the support of campaigners who feel that the current supporting the new clause. I am particularly concerned legislation does not protect them. After hearing what about this area, not least following my work on the my hon. Friends have said about the impact this has Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018, which brought had over many years on their constituents—and presumably MaPS into existence. We held serious concerns that the after some lobbying from across the House, because at guidance elements that were supposed to be partnering least 30 colleagues have constituents who are impacted, pension freedoms were not strong enough then and we including, according to the campaigners, the hon. Members still hold those now. for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) I touched on this in Committee, but it is worth and for Moray (Douglas Ross) and the Secretary of repeating for colleagues who may be havering on which State for Scotland—the Minister must surely be eager way to vote that the Government’s opposition to this to do something. new clause appears to be based on the work the Financial Before the Minister speaks, I wish to point him to the Conduct Authority is doing and the idea of providing a correspondence he should have received last week from stronger nudge—we have heard about that—to people the director of Plumbing Employers Action Group Ltd., 103 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 104

[Neil Gray] investment decisions that were inappropriate for them. The importance of this has already been highlighted by which should allay his fears about new clause 4 setting a the hon. Members for North East Fife and for Gloucester precedent, or about passing on liabilities to other employers, (Richard Graham) , as well as by my hon. Friend the as has already been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon. There is a major concern that Member for Gordon. It is worth remembering, through open DB schemes will need to de-risk, and there are all this, that these plumbers have found themselves in potentially serious implications for them of doing so. In this situation through no fault of their own, but because Committee, the Minister stated in response to one of of a lack of information from trustees regarding their my lines of questioning: potential section 75 obligations. I hope that new clauses “I want to make it clear again—I have said it once, but I will 4 and 5 can be accepted to ensure that nobody falls into say it again—that the Government are not proposing to introduce bankruptcy and poverty through no fault of their own. a one-size-fits-all funding standard”.––[Official Report, Pension Our new clause 2 would help the UK Government in Schemes Public Bill Committee, 5 November 2020; c. 81.] three areas. It would establish an independent advisory However, the CBI has contradicted him by saying: commission to look at the terms of this legislation. The “The regulator’s proposals risk moving back to one-size-fits-all Minister knows that it has been a long-term SNP policy regulation…Businesses and trustees need to be confident that the to see an independent pensions and savings commission new code will allow them to make decisions that benefit savers established. The scope of the Bill does not allow us to and the long-term health of companies.” go that far, but this advisory commission could eventually The Minister protested strongly about the Government’s become the standing commission we wish to see and a intentions; it may not be their intention to introduce sounding board for long-term pensions and savings one-size-fits-all regulation, but the Minister is reckoning policy. It would ensure, for instance, that we never saw a without the law of unintended consequences. In order repeat of the WASPI scandal. to be sure, why not allow a safeguard to be on the face of the Bill to protect against the unintended consequences, In the meantime, new clause 2 would also allow the identified by the CBI and others, which could otherwise UK Government out of the bind that they find themselves see perfectly healthy DB schemes close down? in over commercial dashboards and financial transactions. We believe, as do many stakeholders in the industry, 8.15 pm that the rush to see commercial dashboards with financial transactions could be extremely damaging. The hon. Richard Graham: The hon. Gentleman is making a Member for Amber Valley has highlighted that risk. point that a number of us made earlier. I notice that in the Committee, on which the hon. Gentleman served, The Minister has previously suggested that commercial the Minister responded pretty clearly by saying: dashboards are necessary to allow the independent “Open schemes with a strong sponsoring employer that are public dashboard—the MaPS dashboard—to work, but immature and have managed their risk appropriately should not that can only be the case if a deal has been done be forced into an inappropriate de-risking journey.”––[Official with the sector to allow commercial dashboards with Report, Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] Public Bill Committee, transactional ability in exchange for the data that the 5 November 2020; c. 80.] providers have for the public dashboard. The Government I found that quite reassuring; what does the hon. Gentleman could quite easily mandate that data to be provided think? without the incentive of early commercial dashboards and the risks of financial transactions. Time is the Neil Gray: I was just coming on to quote that very wisest counsellor of all, which is why I do not understand passage from the Minister in Committee— the Government’s determination to plough on without taking stock, without analysing the risks and without Guy Opperman: Of course! ensuring that savers do not suffer detriment from shifting Neil Gray: I was—I have it right here. We took some so quickly to commercial dashboards and financial comfort from that statement from the Minister, but I transactions. have to emphasise the word “inappropriate” in respect We want to see the MaPS dashboard established of that de-risking journey. For the avoidance of doubt, quickly to provide impartial and reliable information will the Minister confirm that unless schemes started to for savers, and that is why we have brought back move towards significant maturity, there would not be amendment 8 to reinsert the wording from the Lords any appropriate de-risking journey? Will the Minister that was removed in Committee. This has cross-party further confirm that he has no intention of insisting backing and backing from stakeholders. The public that all open schemes progressively de-risk their investments dashboard has the ability and the potential to be as if any remain sufficiently far from significant maturity, revolutionary for pensions and savings as auto-enrolment and that he will ensure that the regulations do not have has been, but that can only be the case if the Government that effect? If so, how will they ensure that? We also ask get behind it and give it the space to develop. Also, the the Minister to accept amendment 7, but if that does commission could help with what Members on all sides not happen, we will support the Liberal Democrat repeatedly turned to in Committee—namely, finding amendment 1. cross-party consensus on long-term pensions policy. On amendments 9 and 10, we return to the treatment This could be a safe space for those discussions and of vulnerable customers and the need to better define ensure that pensions policy stood the test of time, the difference between guidance, advice and information. because there would be buy-in from all sides. We touched on this in Committee and the Minister Our amendment 7 deals with open DB schemes. We accepted the principle of where we were coming from have worked extensively with other parties to try to find with our amendments but could not accept them into a form of words to give the scheme providers comfort the Bill. I ask him to look at that again. The SNP have that they were not going to be forced into making tabled amendments to require that specially trained 105 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 106 advisers and guidance are made available to people in introduced that provision in Committee, to ask the vulnerable circumstances, including but not limited to Government to introduce proper regulation of so-called persons who suffer long-term sickness or disability, pensions superfunds,which are profit-making consolidation carers, persons on low incomes and recipients of benefits. vehicles for defined-benefit pension schemes. At present, Circumstances of those types can have a significant they are subject only to an interim regulatory regime impact on people’s finances and long-term savings plans. announced by the Pensions Regulator in the summer. It is also the case that people in difficult financial That is a substantial change, as these funds currently circumstances may be more likely to utilise new pension advertise high rates of return to pension investors. We freedoms, but at a cost to their long-term savings. believe that, as a minimum, those products need a It is clear that the UK Government had not put in proper and robust regulatory regime, underpinned by place adequate safeguards to ensure that older people legislation, that is on a level playing field with the rest of who opt to free up their funds would not end up in a the industry. We are not a lone voice on that. The desperate financial situation later. Those with less money Governor of the Bank of England has written to the are more vulnerable to economic shocks in their personal Secretary of State to raise concerns about the potential finances, as well as being potentially more vulnerable to risk to financial stability and to scheme members. The scammers who give misleading or false advice for free. Opposition would like to hear a commitment today That is why we have re-tabled amendment 10 to ensure from the Minister that legislation for a full regulatory that customers who use the pensions dashboard are regime will be forthcoming before the market begins to made more aware of the difference between information, develop seriously. guidance and advice, which are very different things. Moving on to other matters, the adequate funding of People who expect advice as to what route they may be defined-benefit schemes is critical to their future. We able to take may be disappointed to receive only various were disappointed by the removal in Committee of pieces of information. Likewise, there may be issues clause 123, which related to the funding requirements of with exactly what the body is allowed to advise and to open and closed defined-benefit schemes. That point what extent it is able to advise on the options available. has just been made, and I shall not quote the Minister It is a simple amendment but would be extremely helpful directly again. However, we understand that he has in taking the issue forward. relied frequently on the regulator’s bespoke option in As on all these issues, we have tabled amendments in the draft defined-benefit funding code to provide good faith to try to improve the legislation. We look reassurance for open schemes that they will not be forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in his required to follow the funding and investment strategies response to the debate. of closed schemes. However, there is a long list of Jonathan Reynolds: I place on record my thanks to all people who have expressed doubt about that option, Members who participated today and in Committee. In and who believe that it risks the premature closure of particular, I thank my shadow Work and Pensions team otherwise healthy schemes, including the Pensions and for their diligence and hard work. I also place on record Lifetime Savings Association, the Institute and Faculty our thanks to the Minister and our colleagues from the of Actuaries, Lane Clark & Peacock, the Trades Union SNP for the open dialogue that has been maintained Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, and throughout the Bill’s passage. even one of the Minister’s predecessors as pensions Minister, Baroness Altmann. I recognise that there is no The Opposition did not vote against the Bill on Second disagreement between the Minister and Opposition parties Reading, and it is not our intention to vote against on the desired outcome, but we still believe that there is Third Reading later. We agree with the broad aims of virtue in reintroducing the clause. If amendment 7 or the Bill and believe that it adds a series of worthwhile amendment 1 is pressed to a vote, that will be done with improvements to our pension system. However, we have our support. continually sought, as is the role of the Opposition, to improve the Bill further to make it the best legislation Protecting people in schemes is vital, which is why we that it can possibly be. On Second Reading, I laid out have introduced three changes, to try to strengthen the how we wanted to achieve this, with additional measures consumer protections in the Bill, with amendments 11 to protect pensions, people and the planet. Although to 15. We all agree that the pensions dashboard, when it there was thoughtful debate in Committee, it is arrives, will be an incredible opportunity for people to disappointing that the Government removed some critical see all their pensions information in one place for the parts of the improvements that were made in the Lords. first time, but safeguards must be built in to prevent hasty That is why we have brought back two groups of decision making and consumer exploitation. The last amendments today, as well as seeking a new amendment, thing we want is for people to make bad choices, prompted, which is an opportunity to make a historic step forward for example, by market disruptions or unscrupulous in tackling climate change. I will address each in turn. operators, until they are more accustomed to that level First, on protecting pensions, a well-regulated pensions of access. We believe that we can tackle both those system is vital to give people confidence that it will be things by giving the public dashboard a protected head there for them in their retirement. Pension funds are not start and keeping commercial transactions off the just any financial product. They are usually the sole means dashboard until further legislation is introduced in line of looking after someone in old age, and are responsible with our amendments. for their financial security for an entire phase of their We also believe that there must be accessible and life. Today’s retirement landscape is challenging. The transparent fee information on the dashboard. For Labour party does not oppose the pensions industry in too long, it has been possible to rely on the opacity finding new ways to meet those challenges, but we and complexity of pensions to obscure the real lifetime strongly believe that any innovation must be well regulated, cost of transactions. Greater transparency would surely which is why we have introduced new clause 6. We be welcome. 107 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 108

[Jonathan Reynolds] is already showing us what is possible. Aviva, one of the UK’s biggest pension providers—it supports this I spoke on Second Reading about the scourge of amendment —has recently announced that its auto- pension scams. People can become particularly vulnerable enrolment default funds will aim to achieve net zero by to scams in the years immediately before retirement. We 2050. That is £32 billion of capital, which is actually have heard throughout the debates on the Bill terrible going beyond the scope of this amendment. In October stories, such as the one articulated by my right hon. this year, the BT Pension Scheme set a goal of net zero Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), by 2035 for its entire portfolio, worth £55 billion. There about people falling victim to fraudsters who rely on is also a great deal of good practice in public sector DB confusion about pension freedoms, and not only take schemes, such as the Local Government Pension Scheme. people’s lifetime savings but leave them with a huge tax What is more, today’s amendment was developed and liability. No punishment is severe enough for those who backed by a whole host of organisations across the commit those crimes. We all agree that further action is public and private sectors, with dozens reiterating their needed, so we support the amendments tabled by my support in a letter to the Prime Minister last week. right hon. Friend, who chairs the Work and Pensions These include ClientEarth, Make My Money Matter, Committee, as they would create an opt-out system for ShareAction, E3G, Christian Aid, West Yorkshire Pension speaking with Pension Wise in the five years before Fund, Good Energy, Ecotricity, the Aldersgate Group, retirement. the Climate Coalition, the Carbon Tracker Initiative, Finally, I have spoken about protecting pensions and Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Business in the protecting people, and now I want to talk about protecting Community and the TUC. I would like to thank all the planet. Our colleagues in the Lords worked hard those organisations for the work they have done in with the Government to bring in requirements in the getting us to this point. However, I will also say to the Bill on the assessment and disclosure of climate risk in Minister that this is not a top-down initiative. The pension investments. This is a historic step: the first evidence shows that Members themselves want their time it has ever been included in UK pensions legislation, funds to start taking this seriously. and we all should and do celebrate that fact. However, In addition, the investment case makes this simply we know that, with the climate emergency getting the right thing to do. The Department for Work and even more serious, it is possible to go even further. Pensions has itself acknowledged that considering the Amendment 16 would allow regulators to mandate financial impacts of climate change is consistent with occupational schemes to develop a clear investment fiduciary duty. Pension funds are long-term stewards strategy that is aligned with net zero greenhouse gas of capital. What could be more long term than the emissions at the pace the science demands. sustainability of our environment and our economy? The Paris agreement of 2016, which committed to These two objectives simply do not conflict. As is said efforts to limit global warming to 1.5° was a groundbreaking in an excellent comment piece in and critical step forward in global co-operation to beat today—that in itself is a sign of —it climate change, but I believe we do not do enough to explain to the public and our constituents that “now looks irrefutable that environmental and social factors are a the changes we need will only be delivered by starting to clear guide to company quality and future investment returns.” influence how vast amounts of private capital are I reiterate that this is not about the Government allocated, alongside direct Government decisions on, dictating to pension funds about when and who to for instance, decarbonising power and transport. I have invest their money in, and we are not seeking to compromise to say that I would have thought that argument would trustee independence. It is simply about putting a strategy garner more sympathy with Conservative Members of in place that considers their role in meeting our climate Parliament. objectives. Trustees can maintain their total discretion UK pension funds represent trillions of pounds, and over what strategy they choose to achieve that goal. steering more of that towards our climate goals, yes, Furthermore, this proposal is designed to allow the would be radical, but this amendment is not just about Government the flexibility to guide schemes via regulations where capital is allocated. It is about the stewardship to ensure that trustees have a strategic plan to become that we need to see from all asset managers over the Paris aligned over a period of time. Any measures companies they have investments in. This is not a divestment resulting from this amendment would be subject to amendment, nor does it limit the choices available to extensive consultation with market participants, so that fund managers. The hon. Member for Grantham and their design could take into account what works best for Stamford (Gareth Davies) said that the ESG data is schemes of different types and sizes. This is written to patchy, and he is right, but he will appreciate that asset be as accommodating as possible. The Chancellor of managers demanding better data have been a fundamentally the Exchequer came to the House last week and outlined important driver in making that better, and the his ambitions to make the UK a leader in green finance. E—environmental—is actually the most robust part of It is true that we have been lagging behind our European ESG data. It does not make sense to me to say that the counterparts for many years when it comes to green bonds. data exists for the Government to issue a green bond, As the shadow Economic Secretary in the last Parliament, but not for a pension fund to formulate a Paris investment I made that point frequently, and I was often given strategy. reasons why we could not do that similar to those we We, as the Opposition, ask the Government to deliver have heard today against amendment 16. I am tempted a green economic recovery from the pandemic by investing to say that if we wait until the end of this Parliament, even to support the creation of at least 400,000 new jobs, but this amendment may well become Government policy. achieving progress on climate change demands change With the new US Administration poised to rejoin the in every part of our economy, and despite what we have Paris agreement in 2021 under the new leadership of heard from Government Members today, the industry President-elect Joe Biden, I put it to the House that we 109 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 110 can make this an even more historic week for tackling We have made it entirely clear that we will frame our climate change by passing amendment 16 today. That is secondary legislation in such a way that schemes that why we seek to include it in the Bill. are and are expected to remain immature, and have a 8.30 pm strong employer covenant, continue to be able to invest in a substantial proportion of return-seeking assets, Guy Opperman: This is a hugely important piece of which will help to keep costs down. I have engaged with legislation. It is a landmark Bill. It will impact the lives a range of parties—I met a number of them in detail on of millions of people across this country and it will 2 October, and I have subsequently had discussions make our pensions safer, better and greener. I genuinely with a number of organisations—and we are trying to believe that the work we are doing on CDCs and the reassure them of the way ahead. pensions dashboard, the fact that we are giving real The Pensions Regulator is a regulator, not a legislator. powers to the regulator and taking the opportunity to It must regulate in accordance with the legislation made crack down on the callous crooks who take our constituents’ by Parliament, but we believe that the right way forward pensions, the work we are doing on scams, and the fact is a combination of primary legislation, regulations and that we have for the first time put climate change at the the defined-benefit funding code, whereby we will seek heart of pensions means that this will be groundbreaking to effectively balance employer affordability and member legislation that we should all be proud of. I welcome the security,taking into account the circumstances of different cross-party support that we have heard. types of schemes as is appropriate. I may not be able to address all 30 amendments or the 17 separate requests for clarification, so I refer all Neil Gray: Nothing that the Minister has said contradicts colleagues—and those in the other place, when they anything in our amendment 7 or, for that matter, our consider this matter—to the two days of debate in amendment 1. It would not be the first time if the Committee, where I expanded in great detail on many regulations did not necessarily live up to the promises of these issues. I will happily write to individuals who made in the passage of the primary legislation, so why asked me to address particular points. I will of course not just accept amendment 7 or, indeed, amendment 1 meet the ASW, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South so that the commitment is in the Bill? and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) requested, and write on the Roadchef issue, but I cannot promise anything Guy Opperman: I assure the House that no Minister more than previous Ministers have done. in my position could accept amendment 1, which was Regretfully, I will not engage with the WASPI debate, proposed by the House of Lords and has been tabled by the as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). made clear that he would. I continue to defend this No Government could commit to ensuring that Government’s position, as I defend the Government of contributions remained affordable or that scheme closures the two former Labour Pensions Ministers sitting on were not accelerated. We cannot be bound to ensure the Back Benches, who supported the exact same policy that all schemes that are expected to remain open are during the Labour Government. I very much take forward treated differently from other schemes, as open schemes all the work that is done on a cross-party basis. I put on in that category do not all share the same characteristics. the record my thanks to the Clerks, to all colleagues As I have made clear,some such schemes will be maturing, who have spoken in this debate and to colleagues from just like closed schemes; the potential for abuse would across the House for their work in Committee, which open up. A closed scheme could reopen to very small was of great assistance to the House. numbers of new members, circumvent safeguards and I turn first to clause 123 and the various amendments pursue a riskier investment strategy that would otherwise on open DB that were raised by a variety of colleagues. be inappropriate. We do not want good schemes to We have made it entirely clear that we do not want to close unnecessarily or to introduce a one-size-fits-all see good schemes close. We support DB and we are not regime. I refer briefly to the Pensions Regulator’scomments proposing a one-size-fits-all regime that forces immature in paragraph 475 of the consultation: schemes with strong sponsors into an inappropriate “We acknowledge that if such schemes do continue to admit de-risking journey. We have also made it clear that we new entrants and do not mature then the scheme will not actually will use secondary legislation to ensure that the requirement reach significant maturity. We are content that such a scheme for all schemes to have a funding and investment strategy retains the same flexibility in its funding and investment strategies works appropriately for open schemes and ensures that that all immature schemes have.” immature open schemes are not prevented from taking Similar comments are made later, and I refer hon. appropriate investment risks where that is supportable. Members to the statements I made at great length in As we have explained, it would be wrong for all Committee. schemes that are expected to stay open to be treated I turn now to amendments 2 to 5. I dealt briefly with differently from other schemes. Not all open schemes in the points made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chair this category share the same characteristics. Some will of the Select Committee about clause 125 and the work be maturing just like closed schemes, and it would be we have done. Let me be clear that that clause will wrong to treat such schemes for all purposes as if they ensure that transfers will not go ahead if the conditions were the same as immature schemes. set out in the regulations are not met. Those conditions We hope that we have provided reassurance can relate to the destination of a transfer, so that that open schemes will be able to adopt funding and transfers can be prevented to schemes that do not have investment strategies that are appropriate to their individual the right authorisations or if a member has not supplied circumstances. The regime will remain scheme specific the evidence of employment or residency, for example. and will continue to apply flexibly to the individual Importantly, those conditions can also include other circumstances of each scheme, including those that red flags, such as who else is involved in the transfer. If remain open to new members. those red flags are apparent, the regulations will enable 111 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 112

[Guy Opperman] In respect of costs and charges, I raised that in great detail in Committee, but colleagues will be aware that trustees to refuse to transfer if the red flag is significant the Government intend, and have legislated, that costs or to direct the member to guidance or information that and charges should be part of dashboards in the future, they must take prior to being allowed to transfer. Trustees just like they will be in the simpler statement. That is will also need to undertake due diligence to establish legislated for in clause 119(2), and it is appropriate that whether those conditions are met. we proceed with that only once the dashboard delivery Clause 125 puts trustees in the driving seat in relation group has consulted in a proper way. to permitting transfers to proceed. I make it clear that As to the restrictions on multiple dashboards for one we will continue to work with the Work and Pensions year, I made the point in Committee that in creating Committee, the Treasury Committee, the various advisory dashboards we need to go where the consumer is rather groups and the all-party parliamentary group on pension than forcing the consumer to come to us. That surely is scams, with whose members I have had detailed meetings the essence of this issue: it will increase engagement in the past month, to ensure how we can have the best with pensions, and we should reach people where they possible regulations to determine circumstances in which are. We should not seek to constrain options available different conditions for transfers might apply. but ensure that all opportunities are properly regulated, I now move on to the dashboard amendments. I safe to use and secure. welcome the support in the House for the dashboard; I I turn to the amendments to clause 124—the climate am particularly grateful to the various contributions change clause—tabled by the Labour Front Benchers. I that made it clear that this part of the legislation is am afraid the reality is that Labour’s proposals would absolutely transformational, bringing pensions information direct investment, breach fiduciary duties and lead to into the 21st century. I accept entirely what was made divestment and negative outcomes. We want the clear by the hon. Member for Wallasey: this is a transformation of the United Kingdom economy and huge project, involving tens of thousands of schemes the retrofitting of the country to happen in a partnership that will need to be brought forward. The first dashboard with business, legislators, pension schemes and citizens, will have a “find and view” capability only. At an but I am afraid the amendment would negatively affect appropriate time in the future, dashboards may act as a that. It would be entirely the wrong way forward. safe space for supporting and safeguarding financial transactions. That will be fully considered and informed Labour’s proposal is roundly criticised by the PLSA by user testing and safeguards, and protections would in a letter in which it strongly endorsed and advocated continue to apply. the Government’sproposals to ensure that the appropriate However, I resist the amendments in respect of governance frameworks are in place to support schemes transactions. We have discussed at great length the investing in a climate-aware way. It expressed deep likelihood of the need for individuals to have a greater concern about the Opposition amendment. With the say on their pensions. Why would we seek to exclude PLSA’s permission, I will put its letter of 12 November consolidation going forward? Transactions are not clearly in the House of Commons Library. Likewise, I will defined in the amendments; they could prevent dashboards put in the Library a letter dated 13 November 2020 from from providing useful modelling tools that could inform the independent Association of Pension Lawyers, which people of the potential benefits of increasing their also massively opposes that proposal. The reality is, the contributions. As I made clear to colleagues making the Government are already taking powers to require trustees case for the amendments, the consumer association to set targets in relation to their management of climate Which? has come out comprehensively against them. It risk. We consulted on the use of those powers in August. states in its submission on Second Reading: Our consultation, “Taking action on climate risk”—I “we do not agree that the introduction of commercial dashboards note, interestingly, that Labour Front Benchers did not should be delayed, or that the transactions should be banned.” respond to the consultation; I question whether they have even read it—sets them out in great detail. It then goes into more detail: “there is a need to protect consumers from the risk of commercial This is the factual reality: we are already doing what dashboards…However, this must be done via the introduction of is in the key parts of the amendment in clause 124 as consumer protections and regulatory oversight rather than a introduced in the House of Lords. In the space of two blanket ban.” years, the DWP has made regulations on environmental, The point is also made strongly that the Opposition social and governance criteria, on stewardship investment amendments risk us being left with a dashboard that and now, in clause 124, on mandatory climate change does not do as much as initially anticipated, resulting in governance and reporting. Weneed to allow our proposed consumers not being as engaged. That could represent a policy measures to take effect before reviewing their huge missed opportunity. It is crucial that dashboards impact and contemplating further measures. Of the are both safe and fully functioning to give consumers 50 large pension schemes I wrote to last year, 70% are the most choice and the most exposure to innovation. going well beyond the minimum legal requirements. Therefore, with respect, I will resist the dashboard Many have gone considerably further in the past 12 months, amendments. as nudged and persuaded by the Government. Fiduciaries Clause 118 of the Bill, and the FCA regulated activity, do not need such a blunt measure in order to act, so we will enable the creation of both regulations and FCA strongly reject the amendment. rules, which could include signposting to MaPS guidance. I will turn now to the new clauses, and I will address The pensions dashboards programme usability working them in some detail to the best of my ability. I will, if I group will explore how best to help users understand may, deal with the relatively easy ones. I entirely endorse the information presented to them and where they can the view that this Government must bring forward get more help. legislation in respect of superfunds in the fullness of 113 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 114 time.The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan contribution. It is something that would massively enhance Reynolds) will understand that that would be a substantial the workload of Pension Wise by at least 10 times. He piece of legislation—certainly a 50-clause Bill and possibly will be aware that there are more than 4.4 million more. I entirely accept that further work must be done individuals with unaccessed DC pension wealth aged 45 in this Parliament on automatic enrolment, but I cannot to 54 in the UK. In 2019-20, Pension Wise processed accept new clause 3 or new clause 6. 200,000 transactions. I respectfully suggest—

8.45 pm Stephen Timms: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? In respect of the submissions in relation to plumbers’ pensions, I have met a number of the individuals concerned Guy Opperman: I will give way for the last time. and I completely understand and sympathise with the difficulty that they have been through. New clause 4 is Stephen Timms: On his point about the shared intent, a proposal not to collect debt below the 0.5% threshold. I quoted in my speech what Baroness Buscombe said in It would mean that every time it was applied, the the other place on 1 May 2018. She was speaking, I employer covenant would be weakened, potentially—I think, for him. She said: accept the word is potentially—increasing the risk that “We all want people…to make it the norm to use Pension Wise thousands of members would not get their benefits in before accessing their pension.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, full. 1 May 2018; Vol. 790, c. 1995.] However, the crucial point is surely this: the current Does that remain the Government’s intention? legislation already provides a discretion for trustees not to pursue employers’ debts if they decide that it would Guy Opperman: I stand by section 19 of the Financial be too costly or too lengthy to seek a recovery. Trustees Guidance and Claims Act 2018, which specifically sets also have the flexibility to collect reduced employer out that where a scheme member makes an application debts without compromising their Pension Protection to transfer pensions rights or start receiving flexible Fund backing if they are funded above a section 179 benefits, they have to be referred to appropriate pensions basis, but, with no disrespect to the proponents of guidance and provided with an explanation of the these measures, this is a decision ultimately for the nature and purpose of the guidance. Before proceeding trustees to take and it is the trustees who need to look at with an application, themselves to consider whether they wished to pursue “the trustees or managers must ensure that the beneficiary has this debt— either received appropriate pensions guidance or has opted out of receiving such guidance.” Alan Brown: One of the issues is that trustees have a What we are proposing as a result of section 19 and legal duty in terms of the trust. At least this amendment the stronger nudge proposals is what the Work and would make it much easier for the trustees to implement Pensions Committee asked us to do. I mean no disrespect not chasing up the debt. If somebody has a debt of to the right hon. Gentleman, but our esteemed colleague £1.2 million, who defines what is too costly for the trustees who sadly is not with us anymore, Mr Frank Field, the to decide to chase that debt? That is part of the issue. former Member for Birkenhead, made the case very robustly in documents I am happy to disclose to the Guy Opperman: With no disrespect, that is a matter House—documents that the right hon. Gentleman will for the trustees. The hon. Gentleman can make the case have as Chair of the Committee—that what the to the trustees as to whether it would be too costly or Government are doing is the right way forward. Because too lengthy to receive a recovery. of that, we changed the previous Bill to do exactly what In respect of new clause 5, the deferred debt arrangements we are proposing to do now. were introduced as an easement to help employers However, I am very keen to work with colleagues struggling to manage their section 75 debts in an open across the House and with the Work and Pensions non-associated multi-employer scheme. The new clause, Committee to take forward the proposals to enhance I am afraid, offers only a temporary respite at best. The and improve the guidance that is available. I hope that debt would still exist and would have to be paid in the the right hon. Gentleman will work with me and the future. The employer would have to pay potentially a Government to ensure that that takes place. I may not larger section 75 debt in future if the scheme’s funding have responded to some colleagues, for which I apologise, position declined further. The employer would also remain but I thank all colleagues for their support of his liable for deficit repair contributions. The amendment groundbreaking Bill. would not, I suggest, help sole traders who want to retire, or who have retired, and want to completely end Stephen Timms: I welcome the debate we have had on their liability of the scheme. this set of new clauses and amendments, and I welcome In respect of new clause 2 and the Pensions Commission, many of the things that the Minister said. On new I am afraid, as I have repeatedly made clear to the hon. clause 1, I am not sure whether he does still stand by Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), that this is what his noble Friend said on his behalf two years ago not something that the Government can support. about the use of Pension Wise becoming “the norm”. I finally turn to new clause 1, which was proposed by If that is still his intention, I have not heard anything the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) this evening to make me think that there is a plan to and the Chair of the Select Committee. It is quite clear deliver on that intention. New clause 1 would deliver on that there is a common intent across the House to that intention. I think it is widely agreed across the improve guidance to individuals. I cannot support his House that we should make access to that guidance the amendment, not least because it would potentially apply, norm, so I would like to press new clause 1 to a vote. so I am advised, to defined benefit as well as defined Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. 115 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 116

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 351. Jones, Gerald Phillips, Jess Jones, rh Mr Kevan Phillipson, Bridget Division No. 168] [8.51 pm Jones, Ruth Pollard, Luke Jones, Sarah Powell, Lucy AYES Kane, Mike Qureshi, Yasmin Abbott, rh Ms Diane Debbonaire, Thangam Keeley, Barbara Rayner, Angela Abrahams, Debbie Dhesi, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Kendall, Liz Reed, Steve Ali, Rushanara Docherty-Hughes, Martin Khan, Afzal Rees, Christina Ali, Tahir Dodds, Anneliese Kinnock, Stephen Reeves, Ellie Allin-Khan, Dr Rosena Doogan, Dave Kyle, Peter Reeves, Rachel Amesbury, Mike Dorans, Allan Lake, Ben Reynolds, Jonathan Anderson, Fleur Doughty, Stephen Lammy, rh Mr David Ribeiro-Addy, Bell Antoniazzi, Tonia Dowd, Peter Lavery, Ian Rimmer, Ms Marie Ashworth, Jonathan Dromey, Jack Law, Chris Robinson, Gavin Bardell, Hannah Duffield, Rosie Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Rodda, Matt Barker, Paula Eagle, Ms Angela Lewis, Clive Russell-Moyle, Lloyd Beckett, rh Margaret Eagle, Maria Linden, David Saville Roberts, rh Liz Begum, Apsana Eastwood, Colum Lloyd, Tony Shah, Naz Benn, rh Hilary Edwards, Jonathan Long Bailey, Rebecca Shannon, Jim Betts, Mr Clive Efford, Clive Lucas, Caroline Sharma, Mr Virendra Black, Mhairi Elliott, Julie MacAskill, Kenny Sheerman, Mr Barry Blackford, rh Ian Elmore, Chris MacNeil, Angus Brendan Sheppard, Tommy Blackman, Kirsty Eshalomi, Florence Madders, Justin Siddiq, Tulip Blake, Olivia Esterson, Bill Mahmood, Mr Khalid Slaughter, Andy Blomfield, Paul Evans, Chris Mahmood, Shabana Smith, Alyn Bonnar, Steven Farron, Tim Malhotra, Seema Smith, Cat Brabin, Tracy Farry, Stephen Maskell, Rachael Smith, Nick Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben Fellows, Marion Matheson, Christian Smyth, Karin Brennan, Kevin Ferrier, Margaret Mc Nally, John Sobel, Alex Brock, Deidre Flynn, Stephen McCabe, Steve Spellar, rh John Brown, Alan Fovargue, Yvonne McCarthy, Kerry Stephens, Chris Brown, Ms Lyn Foxcroft, Vicky McDonagh, Siobhain Stevens, Jo Brown, rh Mr Nicholas Foy, Mary Kelly McDonald, Andy Stone, Jamie Bryant, Chris Gibson, Patricia McDonald, Stewart Malcolm Streeting, Wes Buck, Ms Karen Gill, Preet Kaur McDonald, Stuart C. Sultana, Zarah Burgon, Richard Girvan, Paul McDonnell, rh John Tami, rh Mark Butler, Dawn Glindon, Mary McFadden, rh Mr Pat Tarry, Sam Byrne, Ian Grady, Patrick McGinn, Conor Thewliss, Alison Byrne, rh Liam Grant, Peter McGovern, Alison Thomas, Gareth Cadbury, Ruth Gray, Neil McKinnell, Catherine Thomas-Symonds, Nick Callaghan, Amy Green, Kate McLaughlin, Anne Thompson, Owen Cameron, Dr Lisa Greenwood, Lilian McMahon, Jim Thomson, Richard McMorrin, Anna Campbell, rh Sir Alan Greenwood, Margaret Thornberry, rh Emily Mearns, Ian Campbell, Mr Gregory Griffith, Nia Timms, rh Stephen Miliband, rh Edward Carden, Dan Gwynne, Andrew Trickett, Jon Mishra, Navendu Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Haigh, Louise Turner, Karl Chamberlain, Wendy Hamilton, Fabian Monaghan, Carol Moran, Layla Twigg, Derek Champion, Sarah Hanna, Claire Morgan, Stephen Twist, Liz Chapman, Douglas Hanvey, Neale Morris, Grahame Webbe, Claudia Charalambous, Bambos Hardy, Emma Murray, Ian West, Catherine Cherry, Joanna Harman, rh Ms Harriet Murray, James Western, Matt Clark, Feryal Hayes, Helen Nandy, Lisa Whitehead, Dr Alan Cooper, Daisy Healey, rh John Newlands, Gavin Whitford, Dr Philippa Cooper, Rosie Hendrick, Sir Mark Nichols, Charlotte Whitley, Mick Cooper, rh Yvette Hendry, Drew Nicolson, John Whittome, Nadia Corbyn, rh Jeremy Hill, Mike Norris, Alex Williams, Hywel Cowan, Ronnie Hillier, Meg O’Hara, Brendan Wilson, Munira Coyle, Neil Hobhouse, Wera Olney, Sarah Wilson, rh Sammy Crawley, Angela Hodge, rh Dame Margaret Oppong-Asare, Abena Winter, Beth Creasy, Stella Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Osamor, Kate Wishart, Pete Cruddas, Jon Hollern, Kate Osborne, Kate Yasin, Mohammad Cryer, John Hopkins, Rachel Oswald, Kirsten Zeichner, Daniel Cummins, Judith Hosie, Stewart Owatemi, Taiwo Cunningham, Alex Howarth, rh Sir George Owen, Sarah Tellers for the Ayes: Daby, Janet Huq, Dr Rupa Pennycook, Matthew and Davey, rh Ed Hussain, Imran Perkins, Mr Toby Jeff Smith David, Wayne Jardine, Christine Davies, Geraint Jarvis, Dan NOES Davies-Jones, Alex Johnson, Dame Diana Adams, Nigel Afriyie, Adam Day, Martyn Johnson, Kim Afolami, Bim De Cordova, Marsha Jones, Darren Ahmad Khan, Imran 117 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 118

Aiken, Nickie Crouch, Tracey Harper, rh Mr Mark Marson, Julie Aldous, Peter Daly, James Harris, Rebecca May, rh Mrs Theresa Allan, Lucy Davies, David T. C. Harrison, Trudy Mayhew, Jerome Amess, Sir David Davies, Gareth Hart, Sally-Ann Maynard, Paul Anderson, Lee Davies, Dr James Hart, rh Simon McCartney, Jason Anderson, Stuart Davies, Mims Hayes, rh Sir John McCartney, Karl Andrew, Stuart Davies, Philip Heald, rh Sir Oliver McPartland, Stephen Ansell, Caroline Davis, rh Mr David Heappey, James McVey, rh Esther Argar, Edward Davison, Dehenna Heaton-Harris, Chris Menzies, Mark Atherton, Sarah Dinenage, Caroline Henderson, Gordon Mercer, Johnny Atkins, Victoria Dines, Miss Sarah Henry, Darren Merriman, Huw Bacon, Gareth Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Higginbotham, Antony Metcalfe, Stephen Bacon, Mr Richard Docherty, Leo Hinds, rh Damian Millar, Robin Badenoch, Kemi Donelan, Michelle Hoare, Simon Milling, rh Amanda Bailey, Shaun Dorries, Ms Nadine Holden, Mr Richard Mills, Nigel Baillie, Siobhan Double, Steve Hollinrake, Kevin Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew Baker, Duncan Dowden, rh Oliver Hollobone, Mr Philip Mohindra, Mr Gagan Baker, Mr Steve Doyle-Price, Jackie Holloway, Adam Moore, Damien Baldwin, Harriett Drax, Richard Holmes, Paul Moore, Robbie Barclay, rh Steve Drummond, Mrs Flick Howell, John Mordaunt, rh Penny Baron, Mr John Duddridge, James Howell, Paul Morris, Anne Marie Baynes, Simon Duguid, David Huddleston, Nigel Morris, David Bell, Aaron Duncan Smith, rh Sir Iain Hudson, Dr Neil Morris, James Benton, Scott Dunne, rh Philip Hunt, Jane Morrissey, Joy Beresford, Sir Paul Eastwood, Mark Hunt, rh Jeremy Morton, Wendy Berry, rh Jake Edwards, Ruth Hunt, Tom Mullan, Dr Kieran Bhatti, Saqib Ellis, rh Michael Jack, rh Mr Alister Mumby-Croft, Holly Blackman, Bob Ellwood, rh Mr Tobias Javid, rh Sajid Mundell, rh David Blunt, Crispin Elphicke, Mrs Natalie Jayawardena, Mr Ranil Murray, Mrs Sheryll Bone, Mr Peter Eustice, rh George Jenkin, Sir Bernard Murrison, rh Dr Andrew Bottomley, Sir Peter Evans, Dr Luke Jenkinson, Mark Neill, Sir Robert Bowie, Andrew Evennett, rh Sir David Jenkyns, Andrea Nici, Lia Bradley, , Ben Jenrick, rh Robert Nokes, rh Caroline Bradley, rh Karen Fabricant, Michael Johnson, Dr Caroline Norman, rh Jesse Brady, Sir Graham Farris, Laura Johnson, Gareth O’Brien, Neil Braverman, rh Suella Fell, Simon Johnston, David Offord, Dr Matthew Brereton, Jack Fletcher, Katherine Jones, Andrew Opperman, Guy Bridgen, Andrew Fletcher, Mark Jones, rh Mr David Parish, Neil Brine, Steve Fletcher, Nick Jones, Fay Paterson, rh Mr Owen Bristow, Paul Ford, Vicky Jones, Mr Marcus Pawsey, Mark Britcliffe, Sara Foster, Kevin Jupp, Simon Penning, rh Sir Mike Brokenshire, rh James Fox, rh Dr Liam Kawczynski, Daniel Penrose, John Browne, Anthony Francois, rh Mr Mark Kearns, Alicia Percy, Andrew Bruce, Fiona Frazer, Lucy Keegan, Gillian Philp, Chris Buchan, Felicity Freeman, George Knight, rh Sir Greg Pincher, rh Christopher Buckland, rh Robert Freer, Mike Knight, Julian Poulter, Dr Dan Burghart, Alex Fuller, Richard Kruger, Danny Pow, Rebecca Burns, rh Conor Fysh, Mr Marcus Kwarteng, rh Kwasi Prentis, Victoria Butler, Rob Gale, rh Sir Roger Lamont, John Pritchard, Mark Cairns, rh Alun Garnier, Mark Largan, Robert Pursglove, Tom Carter, Andy Ghani, Ms Nusrat Latham, Mrs Pauline Quin, Jeremy Cartlidge, James Gibb, rh Nick Leadsom, rh Andrea Quince, Will Cash, Sir William Gibson, Peter Leigh, rh Sir Edward Raab, rh Dominic Cates, Miriam Gideon, Jo Levy, Ian Randall, Tom Caulfield, Maria Gillan, rh Dame Cheryl Lewer, Andrew Redwood, rh John Chalk, Alex Glen, John Lewis, rh Brandon Rees-Mogg, rh Mr Jacob Chishti, Rehman Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Lewis, rh Dr Julian Richards, Nicola Churchill, Jo Gove, rh Michael Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian Richardson, Angela Clark, rh Greg Graham, Richard Loder, Chris Roberts, Rob Clarke, Mr Simon Grant, Mrs Helen Logan, Mark Robinson, Mary Clarke, Theo Grayling, rh Chris Longhi, Marco Rosindell, Andrew Clarke-Smith, Brendan Green, Chris Lopez, Julia Ross, Douglas Clarkson, , rh Damian Lopresti, Jack Rowley, Lee Cleverly, rh James Griffith, Andrew Lord, Mr Jonathan Russell, Dean Clifton-Brown, Sir Geoffrey Griffiths, Kate Loughton, Tim Rutley, David Coffey, rh Dr Thérèse Grundy, James Mackinlay, Craig Sambrook, Gary Colburn, Elliot Gullis, Jonathan Mackrory, Cherilyn Saxby, Selaine Collins, Damian Halfon, rh Robert Maclean, Rachel Scully, Paul Costa, Alberto Hall, Luke Mak, Alan Seely, Bob Courts, Robert Hammond, Stephen Malthouse, Kit Selous, Andrew Cox, rh Mr Geoffrey Hancock, rh Matt Mangnall, Anthony Shapps, rh Grant Crosbie, Virginia Hands, rh Greg Mann, Scott Sharma, rh Alok 119 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 120

Shelbrooke, rh Alec Truss, rh Elizabeth of the overall employer covenant, there would be Simmonds, David Tugendhat, Tom no material benefit to the scheme and its members Skidmore, rh Chris Vara, Mr Shailesh in seeking recovery of the employer’s liability share Smith, Chloe Vickers, Martin from the departing employer.” Smith, Greg Vickers, Matt (3) In regulation 9, after paragraph (14B), insert the following Smith, Henry Villiers, rh Theresa new paragraph— Smith, rh Julian Wakeford, Christian “(14C) Condition L is that a debt was treated as becoming due Smith, Royston Walker, Mr Robin from him under section 75 of the 1995 Act but is excluded under Solloway, Amanda Wallace, rh Mr Ben this Condition because— Spencer, Dr Ben Wallis, Dr Jamie (a) the employer’s debt was treated as becoming due prior Spencer, rh Mark Warburton, David to this Condition coming into force; and Stafford, Alexander Warman, Matt (b) the employer’s debt was less than 0.5% of the scheme’s Stephenson, Andrew Watling, Giles overall liabilities, as estimated by the trustees or managers Stevenson, Jane Webb, Suzanne on advice of the scheme actuary, as if the whole Stevenson, John Whately, Helen scheme had been winding-up at the time the debt was Stewart, Bob Wheeler, Mrs Heather treated as becoming due; and Stewart, Iain Whittaker, Craig (c) the employer in question was operating as an Streeter, Sir Gary Whittingdale, rh Mr John unincorporated business during his participation in Stride, rh Mel Wiggin, Bill the scheme; and Stuart, Graham Wild, James (d) at or before the applicable time, the trustees or managers Sturdy, Julian Williams, Craig have made a determination not to pursue the debt on Sunderland, James Williamson, rh Gavin the grounds that, in the context of the scheme overall, Swayne, rh Sir Desmond Wood, Mike taking into account factors such as the scheme’s assets, Syms, Sir Robert Wragg, Mr William liabilities and the trustees’ or managers’ most recent Thomas, Derek Wright, rh Jeremy assessment of the overall employer covenant, seeking Throup, Maggie Young, Jacob recovery represented a disproportionate cost to the Timpson, Edward Zahawi, Nadhim scheme and would be of no material benefit to the Tolhurst, Kelly scheme overall.”’—(Neil Gray.) Tomlinson, Justin Tellers for the Noes: This new clause would enable pension scheme trustees to exercise Tracey, Craig Eddie Hughes and discretion not to pursue employer debt following an employer’s exit Trott, Laura Michael Tomlinson from a pension scheme where such debt is below a de minimis threshold. This aims to support unincorporated employers who are Question accordingly negatived. now retired for business and for whom the current regulation allows no easements. The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their Brought up. proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates. Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. 9.3 pm The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 349. Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order,7 October). Division No. 169] [9.4 pm The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that AYES time (Standing Order No. 83E). Abbott, rh Ms Diane Burgon, Richard Abrahams, Debbie Butler, Dawn New Clause 4 Ali, Rushanara Byrne, Ian Ali, Tahir Byrne, rh Liam EMPLOYER DEBT: TRUSTEES’ DISCRETION Allin-Khan, Dr Rosena Cadbury, Ruth ‘(1) The following changes are made to the Occupational Amesbury, Mike Callaghan, Amy Pension Schemes (Employer Debt) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/678). Anderson, Fleur Cameron, Dr Lisa (2) In regulation 2, in the definition of “scheme apportionment Antoniazzi, Tonia Campbell, rh Sir Alan arrangement”— Ashworth, Jonathan Campbell, Mr Gregory (a) in sub-paragraph (f)(ii), after “apply”, insert “but not Bardell, Hannah Carden, Dan if the circumstances in paragraph (h) apply”; Barker, Paula Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair (b) at end insert— Beckett, rh Margaret Chamberlain, Wendy Begum, Apsana Champion, Sarah “(h) the consent of the remaining employer or employers shall not be required under (f)(ii) above where all of Benn, rh Hilary Chapman, Douglas the following conditions apply— Betts, Mr Clive Charalambous, Bambos Black, Mhairi Cherry, Joanna (i) the departing employer’s debt was treated as Blackford, rh Ian Clark, Feryal becoming due prior to the coming into force of this provision; and Blackman, Kirsty Cooper, Daisy Blake, Olivia Cooper, Rosie (ii) the departing employer’s debt was less than 0.5% of Blomfield, Paul Cooper, rh Yvette the scheme’s overall liabilities, as estimated by the Bonnar, Steven Corbyn, rh Jeremy trustees or managers on advice of the scheme actuary, as if the whole scheme had been winding-up at the Brabin, Tracy Cowan, Ronnie time the debt was treated as becoming due; and Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben Coyle, Neil (iii) the employer in question was operating as an Brennan, Kevin Crawley, Angela unincorporated business during his participation Brock, Deidre Creasy, Stella in the scheme; and Brown, Alan Cruddas, Jon (iv) the trustees or managers consider that, in the Brown, Ms Lyn Cryer, John context of the scheme overall, taking into account Brown, rh Mr Nicholas Cummins, Judith factors such as the scheme’s assets, liabilities and Bryant, Chris Cunningham, Alex the trustees’ or managers’ most recent assessment Buck, Ms Karen Daby, Janet 121 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 122

Davey, rh Ed Jones, Darren Rayner, Angela Sultana, Zarah David, Wayne Jones, Gerald Reed, Steve Tami, rh Mark Davies, Geraint Jones, rh Mr Kevan Rees, Christina Tarry, Sam Davies-Jones, Alex Jones, Ruth Reeves, Ellie Thewliss, Alison Day, Martyn Jones, Sarah Reeves, Rachel Thomas, Gareth De Cordova, Marsha Kane, Mike Reynolds, Jonathan Thomas-Symonds, Nick Debbonaire, Thangam Keeley, Barbara Ribeiro-Addy, Bell Thomson, Richard Dhesi, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Kendall, Liz Rimmer, Ms Marie Thornberry, rh Emily Docherty-Hughes, Martin Khan, Afzal Robinson, Gavin Timms, rh Stephen Dodds, Anneliese Kinnock, Stephen Rodda, Matt Trickett, Jon Doogan, Dave Kyle, Peter Russell-Moyle, Lloyd Turner, Karl Dorans, Allan Lake, Ben Saville Roberts, rh Liz Twigg, Derek Doughty, Stephen Lammy, rh Mr David Shah, Naz Twist, Liz Dowd, Peter Lavery, Ian Shannon, Jim Webbe, Claudia Dromey, Jack Law, Chris Sharma, Mr Virendra West, Catherine Duffield, Rosie Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Sheerman, Mr Barry Western, Matt Eagle, Ms Angela Lewis, Clive Sheppard, Tommy Whitehead, Dr Alan Eagle, Maria Lloyd, Tony Siddiq, Tulip Whitford, Dr Philippa Eastwood, Colum Long Bailey, Rebecca Slaughter, Andy Whitley, Mick Edwards, Jonathan Lucas, Caroline Smith, Alyn Whittome, Nadia Efford, Clive MacAskill, Kenny Smith, Cat Williams, Hywel Elliott, Julie MacNeil, Angus Brendan Smith, Jeff Wilson, Munira Elmore, Chris Madders, Justin Smith, Nick Wilson, rh Sammy Eshalomi, Florence Mahmood, Mr Khalid Smyth, Karin Winter, Beth Esterson, Bill Mahmood, Shabana Sobel, Alex Wishart, Pete Evans, Chris Malhotra, Seema Spellar, rh John Yasin, Mohammad Farron, Tim Maskell, Rachael Stephens, Chris Zeichner, Daniel Farry, Stephen Matheson, Christian Stevens, Jo Tellers for the Ayes: Fellows, Marion Mc Nally, John Stone, Jamie Owen Thompson and Ferrier, Margaret McCabe, Steve Streeting, Wes David Linden Fletcher, Colleen McCarthy, Kerry Flynn, Stephen McDonagh, Siobhain Fovargue, Yvonne McDonald, Andy NOES Foxcroft, Vicky McDonald, Stewart Malcolm Adams, Nigel Braverman, rh Suella Foy, Mary Kelly McDonald, Stuart C. Afolami, Bim Brereton, Jack Gibson, Patricia McDonnell, rh John Afriyie, Adam Bridgen, Andrew Gill, Preet Kaur McFadden, rh Mr Pat Ahmad Khan, Imran Brine, Steve Girvan, Paul McGinn, Conor Aiken, Nickie Bristow, Paul Glindon, Mary McGovern, Alison Aldous, Peter Britcliffe, Sara Grady, Patrick McKinnell, Catherine Allan, Lucy Brokenshire, rh James Grant, Peter McLaughlin, Anne Amess, Sir David Browne, Anthony Gray, Neil McMahon, Jim Anderson, Lee Bruce, Fiona Green, Kate McMorrin, Anna Anderson, Stuart Buchan, Felicity Greenwood, Lilian Mearns, Ian Andrew, Stuart Buckland, rh Robert Greenwood, Margaret Miliband, rh Edward Ansell, Caroline Burghart, Alex Griffith, Nia Mishra, Navendu Argar, Edward Burns, rh Conor Gwynne, Andrew Monaghan, Carol Atherton, Sarah Butler, Rob Haigh, Louise Moran, Layla Atkins, Victoria Cairns, rh Alun Hamilton, Fabian Morgan, Stephen Bacon, Gareth Carter, Andy Hanna, Claire Morris, Grahame Bacon, Mr Richard Cartlidge, James Hanvey, Neale Murray, Ian Badenoch, Kemi Cash, Sir William Hardy, Emma Murray, James Bailey, Shaun Cates, Miriam Harman, rh Ms Harriet Nandy, Lisa Baillie, Siobhan Caulfield, Maria Hayes, Helen Newlands, Gavin Baker, Duncan Chalk, Alex Healey, rh John Nichols, Charlotte Baker, Mr Steve Chishti, Rehman Hendrick, Sir Mark Nicolson, John Baldwin, Harriett Churchill, Jo Hendry, Drew Norris, Alex Barclay, rh Steve Clark, rh Greg Hill, Mike O’Hara, Brendan Baron, Mr John Clarke, Mr Simon Hillier, Meg Olney, Sarah Baynes, Simon Clarke, Theo Hobhouse, Wera Oppong-Asare, Abena Bell, Aaron Clarke-Smith, Brendan Hodge, rh Dame Margaret Osamor, Kate Benton, Scott Clarkson, Chris Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Osborne, Kate Beresford, Sir Paul Cleverly, rh James Hollern, Kate Oswald, Kirsten Berry, rh Jake Clifton-Brown, Sir Geoffrey Hopkins, Rachel Owatemi, Taiwo Bhatti, Saqib Coffey, rh Dr Thérèse Hosie, Stewart Owen, Sarah Blackman, Bob Colburn, Elliot Howarth, rh Sir George Pennycook, Matthew Blunt, Crispin Collins, Damian Huq, Dr Rupa Perkins, Mr Toby Bone, Mr Peter Costa, Alberto Hussain, Imran Phillips, Jess Bottomley, Sir Peter Courts, Robert Jardine, Christine Phillipson, Bridget Bowie, Andrew Cox, rh Mr Geoffrey Jarvis, Dan Pollard, Luke Bradley, Ben Crosbie, Virginia Johnson, Dame Diana Powell, Lucy Bradley, rh Karen Crouch, Tracey Johnson, Kim Qureshi, Yasmin Brady, Sir Graham Daly, James 123 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 124

Davies, David T. C. Hart, Sally-Ann Maynard, Paul Seely, Bob Davies, Gareth Hart, rh Simon McCartney, Jason Selous, Andrew Davies, Dr James Hayes, rh Sir John McCartney, Karl Shapps, rh Grant Davies, Mims Heald, rh Sir Oliver McPartland, Stephen Sharma, rh Alok Davies, Philip Heappey, James McVey, rh Esther Shelbrooke, rh Alec Davis, rh Mr David Heaton-Harris, Chris Menzies, Mark Skidmore, rh Chris Davison, Dehenna Henderson, Gordon Mercer, Johnny Smith, Chloe Dinenage, Caroline Henry, Darren Merriman, Huw Smith, Greg Dines, Miss Sarah Higginbotham, Antony Metcalfe, Stephen Smith, Henry Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Hinds, rh Damian Millar, Robin Smith, rh Julian Docherty, Leo Hoare, Simon Milling, rh Amanda Smith, Royston Donelan, Michelle Holden, Mr Richard Mills, Nigel Solloway, Amanda Dorries, Ms Nadine Hollinrake, Kevin Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew Spencer, Dr Ben Double, Steve Hollobone, Mr Philip Mohindra, Mr Gagan Spencer, rh Mark Dowden, rh Oliver Holloway, Adam Moore, Damien Stafford, Alexander Doyle-Price, Jackie Holmes, Paul Moore, Robbie Stephenson, Andrew Drax, Richard Howell, John Mordaunt, rh Penny Stevenson, Jane Drummond, Mrs Flick Howell, Paul Morris, Anne Marie Stevenson, John Duddridge, James Huddleston, Nigel Morris, David Stewart, Bob Duguid, David Hudson, Dr Neil Morris, James Stewart, , rh Sir Iain Hunt, Jane Morrissey, Joy Streeter, Sir Gary Dunne, rh Philip Hunt, rh Jeremy Morton, Wendy Stride, rh Mel Eastwood, Mark Hunt, Tom Mullan, Dr Kieran Stuart, Graham Edwards, Ruth Jack, rh Mr Alister Mumby-Croft, Holly Sturdy, Julian Ellis, rh Michael Javid, rh Sajid Mundell, rh David Sunderland, James Ellwood, rh Mr Tobias Jayawardena, Mr Ranil Murray, Mrs Sheryll Swayne, rh Sir Desmond Elphicke, Mrs Natalie Jenkin, Sir Bernard Murrison, rh Dr Andrew Syms, Sir Robert Eustice, rh George Jenkinson, Mark Neill, Sir Robert Thomas, Derek Evans, Dr Luke Jenkyns, Andrea Nici, Lia Throup, Maggie Evennett, rh Sir David Jenrick, rh Robert Nokes, rh Caroline Timpson, Edward Everitt, Ben Johnson, Dr Caroline Norman, rh Jesse Tolhurst, Kelly Fabricant, Michael Johnson, Gareth O’Brien, Neil Tomlinson, Justin Farris, Laura Johnston, David Offord, Dr Matthew Tracey, Craig Fell, Simon Jones, Andrew Opperman, Guy Trott, Laura Fletcher, Katherine Jones, rh Mr David Parish, Neil Truss, rh Elizabeth Fletcher, Mark Jones, Fay Paterson, rh Mr Owen Tugendhat, Tom Fletcher, Nick Jones, Mr Marcus Pawsey, Mark Vara, Mr Shailesh Ford, Vicky Jupp, Simon Penning, rh Sir Mike Vickers, Martin Foster, Kevin Kawczynski, Daniel Penrose, John Vickers, Matt Fox, rh Dr Liam Kearns, Alicia Percy, Andrew Villiers, rh Theresa Francois, rh Mr Mark Keegan, Gillian Philp, Chris Wakeford, Christian Frazer, Lucy Knight, rh Sir Greg Pincher, rh Christopher Walker, Mr Robin Freeman, George Knight, Julian Poulter, Dr Dan Wallace, rh Mr Ben Freer, Mike Kruger, Danny Pow, Rebecca Wallis, Dr Jamie Fuller, Richard Kwarteng, rh Kwasi Prentis, Victoria Warburton, David Fysh, Mr Marcus Lamont, John Pritchard, Mark Warman, Matt Gale, rh Sir Roger Largan, Robert Pursglove, Tom Watling, Giles Garnier, Mark Latham, Mrs Pauline Quin, Jeremy Webb, Suzanne Ghani, Ms Nusrat Leadsom, rh Andrea Quince, Will Whately, Helen Gibb, rh Nick Leigh, rh Sir Edward Raab, rh Dominic Wheeler, Mrs Heather Gibson, Peter Levy, Ian Randall, Tom Whittaker, Craig Gideon, Jo Lewer, Andrew Redwood, rh John Whittingdale, rh Mr John Gillan, rh Dame Cheryl Lewis, rh Brandon Rees-Mogg, rh Mr Jacob Wiggin, Bill Glen, John Lewis, rh Dr Julian Richards, Nicola Wild, James Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian Richardson, Angela Williams, Craig Gove, rh Michael Loder, Chris Roberts, Rob Williamson, rh Gavin Grant, Mrs Helen Logan, Mark Robinson, Mary Wood, Mike Grayling, rh Chris Longhi, Marco Rosindell, Andrew Wragg, Mr William Green, Chris Lopez, Julia Ross, Douglas Wright, rh Jeremy Green, rh Damian Lopresti, Jack Rowley, Lee Young, Jacob Griffith, Andrew Lord, Mr Jonathan Russell, Dean Zahawi, Nadhim Griffiths, Kate Loughton, Tim Rutley, David Grundy, James Mackinlay, Craig Sambrook, Gary Tellers for the Noes: Gullis, Jonathan Mackrory, Cherilyn Saxby, Selaine Eddie Hughes and Halfon, rh Robert Maclean, Rachel Scully, Paul Michael Tomlinson Hall, Luke Mak, Alan Hammond, Stephen Malthouse, Kit Question accordingly negatived. Hancock, rh Matt Mangnall, Anthony Hands, rh Greg Mann, Scott The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a Harper, rh Mr Mark Marson, Julie proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their Harris, Rebecca May, rh Mrs Theresa proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates. Harrison, Trudy Mayhew, Jerome 125 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 126

Clause 123 Dromey, Jack Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Duffield, Rosie Lewis, Clive FUNDING OF DEFINED BENEFIT SCHEMES Eagle, Ms Angela Linden, David Eagle, Maria Lloyd, Tony Amendment proposed: 1, page 117, line 34, at end Eastwood, Colum Long Bailey, Rebecca insert— Edwards, Jonathan Lucas, Caroline ‘(2) In exercising any powers to make regulations, or otherwise Efford, Clive MacAskill, Kenny to prescribe any matter or principle, under Part 3 of the Pensions Elliott, Julie MacNeil, Angus Brendan Act 2004 (scheme funding) as amended by Schedule 10, the Elmore, Chris Madders, Justin Secretary of State must ensure that— Eshalomi, Florence Mahmood, Mr Khalid (a) schemes that are expected to remain open to new Esterson, Bill Mahmood, Shabana members, either indefinitely or for a significant period Evans, Chris Malhotra, Seema of time, are treated differently from schemes that are Farron, Tim Maskell, Rachael not; Farry, Stephen Matheson, Christian (b) scheme liquidity is balanced with scheme maturity; Fellows, Marion Mc Nally, John (c) there is a correlation between appropriate investment Ferrier, Margaret McCabe, Steve risk and scheme maturity; Fletcher, Colleen McCarthy, Kerry (d) affordability of contributions to employers is maintained; Flynn, Stephen McDonagh, Siobhain (e) affordability of contributions to members is maintained; Fovargue, Yvonne McDonald, Andy Foxcroft, Vicky McDonald, Stewart Malcolm (f) the closure of schemes that are expected to remain open Foy, Mary Kelly McDonald, Stuart C. to new members, either indefinitely or for a significant Gibson, Patricia McDonnell, rh John period of time, is not accelerated; and Gill, Preet Kaur McFadden, rh Mr Pat (g) trustees retain sufficient discretion to be able to comply Glindon, Mary McGinn, Conor with their duty to act in the best interests of their Grady, Patrick McGovern, Alison beneficiaries.”—(Wendy Chamberlain.) Grant, Peter McKinnell, Catherine This amendment seeks to ensure that open and active schemes which Gray, Neil McLaughlin, Anne are receiving regular, significant cash contributions and closed Green, Kate McMahon, Jim schemes are treated differently, in accordance with their differing Greenwood, Lilian McMorrin, Anna liquidity profile. Greenwood, Margaret Mearns, Ian Question put, That the amendment be made. Griffith, Nia Miliband, rh Edward Gwynne, Andrew Mishra, Navendu The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 356. Haigh, Louise Monaghan, Carol Division No. 170] [9.17 pm Hamilton, Fabian Moran, Layla Hanna, Claire Morgan, Stephen AYES Hanvey, Neale Morris, Grahame Abbott, rh Ms Diane Cameron, Dr Lisa Hardy, Emma Murray, Ian Abrahams, Debbie Campbell, rh Sir Alan Harman, rh Ms Harriet Murray, James Ali, Rushanara Carden, Dan Hayes, Helen Nandy, Lisa Ali, Tahir Chamberlain, Wendy Healey, rh John Newlands, Gavin Allin-Khan, Dr Rosena Champion, Sarah Hendrick, Sir Mark Nichols, Charlotte Amesbury, Mike Chapman, Douglas Hendry, Drew Nicolson, John Anderson, Fleur Charalambous, Bambos Hill, Mike Norris, Alex Antoniazzi, Tonia Cherry, Joanna Hillier, Meg O’Hara, Brendan Ashworth, Jonathan Clark, Feryal Hobhouse, Wera Oppong-Asare, Abena Bardell, Hannah Cooper, Daisy Hodge, rh Dame Margaret Osamor, Kate Barker, Paula Cooper, Rosie Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Osborne, Kate Beckett, rh Margaret Cooper, rh Yvette Hollern, Kate Oswald, Kirsten Begum, Apsana Corbyn, rh Jeremy Hopkins, Rachel Owatemi, Taiwo Benn, rh Hilary Cowan, Ronnie Hosie, Stewart Owen, Sarah Betts, Mr Clive Coyle, Neil Howarth, rh Sir George Pennycook, Matthew Black, Mhairi Crawley, Angela Huq, Dr Rupa Perkins, Mr Toby Blackford, rh Ian Creasy, Stella Hussain, Imran Phillips, Jess Blackman, Kirsty Cruddas, Jon Jardine, Christine Phillipson, Bridget Blake, Olivia Cryer, John Jarvis, Dan Pollard, Luke Blomfield, Paul Cummins, Judith Johnson, Dame Diana Powell, Lucy Bonnar, Steven Cunningham, Alex Johnson, Kim Qureshi, Yasmin Brabin, Tracy Daby, Janet Jones, Darren Rayner, Angela Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben Davey, rh Ed Jones, Gerald Reed, Steve Brennan, Kevin David, Wayne Jones, rh Mr Kevan Rees, Christina Brock, Deidre Davies, Geraint Jones, Ruth Reeves, Ellie Brown, Alan Davies-Jones, Alex Jones, Sarah Reeves, Rachel Brown, Ms Lyn Day, Martyn Kane, Mike Reynolds, Jonathan Brown, rh Mr Nicholas De Cordova, Marsha Keeley, Barbara Ribeiro-Addy, Bell Bryant, Chris Debbonaire, Thangam Kendall, Liz Rimmer, Ms Marie Buck, Ms Karen Dhesi, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Khan, Afzal Rodda, Matt Burgon, Richard Docherty-Hughes, Martin Kinnock, Stephen Russell-Moyle, Lloyd Butler, Dawn Dodds, Anneliese Kyle, Peter Saville Roberts, rh Liz Byrne, Ian Doogan, Dave Lake, Ben Shah, Naz Byrne, rh Liam Dorans, Allan Lammy, rh Mr David Sharma, Mr Virendra Cadbury, Ruth Doughty, Stephen Lavery, Ian Sheerman, Mr Barry Callaghan, Amy Dowd, Peter Law, Chris Sheppard, Tommy 127 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 128

Siddiq, Tulip Timms, rh Stephen Doyle-Price, Jackie Hollobone, Mr Philip Slaughter, Andy Trickett, Jon Drax, Richard Holloway, Adam Smith, Alyn Turner, Karl Drummond, Mrs Flick Holmes, Paul Smith, Cat Twigg, Derek Duddridge, James Howell, John Smith, Jeff Twist, Liz Duguid, David Howell, Paul Smith, Nick Webbe, Claudia Duncan Smith, rh Sir Iain Huddleston, Nigel Smyth, Karin West, Catherine Dunne, rh Philip Hudson, Dr Neil Sobel, Alex Western, Matt Eastwood, Mark Hunt, Jane Spellar, rh John Whitehead, Dr Alan Edwards, Ruth Hunt, rh Jeremy Stephens, Chris Whitford, Dr Philippa Ellis, rh Michael Hunt, Tom Stevens, Jo Whitley, Mick Ellwood, rh Mr Tobias Jack, rh Mr Alister Stone, Jamie Whittome, Nadia Elphicke, Mrs Natalie Javid, rh Sajid Streeting, Wes Williams, Hywel Eustice, rh George Jayawardena, Mr Ranil Sultana, Zarah Wilson, Munira Evans, Dr Luke Jenkin, Sir Bernard Tami, rh Mark Winter, Beth Evennett, rh Sir David Jenkinson, Mark Tarry, Sam Wishart, Pete Everitt, Ben Jenkyns, Andrea Thewliss, Alison Fabricant, Michael Jenrick, rh Robert Yasin, Mohammad Thomas, Gareth Farris, Laura Johnson, Dr Caroline Zeichner, Daniel Thomas-Symonds, Nick Fell, Simon Johnson, Gareth Thompson, Owen Tellers for the Ayes: Fletcher, Katherine Johnston, David Thomson, Richard Mr Alistair Carmichael and Fletcher, Mark Jones, Andrew Thornberry, rh Emily Sarah Olney Fletcher, Nick Jones, rh Mr David Ford, Vicky Jones, Fay NOES Foster, Kevin Jones, Mr Marcus Fox, rh Dr Liam Jupp, Simon Adams, Nigel Bruce, Fiona Francois, rh Mr Mark Kawczynski, Daniel Afolami, Bim Buchan, Felicity Frazer, Lucy Kearns, Alicia Afriyie, Adam Buckland, rh Robert Freeman, George Keegan, Gillian Ahmad Khan, Imran Burghart, Alex Freer, Mike Knight, rh Sir Greg Aiken, Nickie Burns, rh Conor Fuller, Richard Knight, Julian Aldous, Peter Butler, Rob Fysh, Mr Marcus Kruger, Danny Allan, Lucy Cairns, rh Alun Gale, rh Sir Roger Kwarteng, rh Kwasi Amess, Sir David Campbell, Mr Gregory Garnier, Mark Lamont, John Anderson, Lee Carter, Andy Ghani, Ms Nusrat Largan, Robert Anderson, Stuart Cartlidge, James Gibb, rh Nick Latham, Mrs Pauline Andrew, Stuart Cash, Sir William Gibson, Peter Leadsom, rh Andrea Ansell, Caroline Cates, Miriam Gideon, Jo Leigh, rh Sir Edward Argar, Edward Caulfield, Maria Gillan, rh Dame Cheryl Levy, Ian Atherton, Sarah Chalk, Alex Girvan, Paul Lewer, Andrew Atkins, Victoria Chishti, Rehman Glen, John Lewis, rh Brandon Bacon, Gareth Churchill, Jo Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Lewis, rh Dr Julian Bacon, Mr Richard Clark, rh Greg Gove, rh Michael Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian Badenoch, Kemi Clarke, Mr Simon Graham, Richard Loder, Chris Bailey, Shaun Clarke, Theo Grant, Mrs Helen Logan, Mark Baillie, Siobhan Clarke-Smith, Brendan Grayling, rh Chris Longhi, Marco Baker, Duncan Clarkson, Chris Green, Chris Lopez, Julia Baker, Mr Steve Cleverly, rh James Green, rh Damian Lopresti, Jack Baldwin, Harriett Clifton-Brown, Sir Geoffrey Griffith, Andrew Lord, Mr Jonathan Barclay, rh Steve Coffey, rh Dr Thérèse Griffiths, Kate Loughton, Tim Baron, Mr John Colburn, Elliot Grundy, James Mackinlay, Craig Baynes, Simon Collins, Damian Gullis, Jonathan Mackrory, Cherilyn Bell, Aaron Costa, Alberto Halfon, rh Robert Maclean, Rachel Benton, Scott Courts, Robert Hall, Luke Mak, Alan Beresford, Sir Paul Cox, rh Mr Geoffrey Hammond, Stephen Malthouse, Kit Berry, rh Jake Crosbie, Virginia Hancock, rh Matt Mangnall, Anthony Bhatti, Saqib Crouch, Tracey Hands, rh Greg Mann, Scott Blackman, Bob Daly, James Harper, rh Mr Mark Marson, Julie Blunt, Crispin Davies, David T. C. Harris, Rebecca May, rh Mrs Theresa Bone, Mr Peter Davies, Gareth Harrison, Trudy Mayhew, Jerome Bottomley, Sir Peter Davies, Dr James Hart, Sally-Ann Maynard, Paul Bowie, Andrew Davies, Mims Hart, rh Simon McCartney, Jason Bradley, Ben Davies, Philip Hayes, rh Sir John McCartney, Karl Bradley, rh Karen Davis, rh Mr David Heald, rh Sir Oliver McPartland, Stephen Brady, Sir Graham Davison, Dehenna Heappey, James McVey, rh Esther Braverman, rh Suella Dinenage, Caroline Heaton-Harris, Chris Menzies, Mark Brereton, Jack Dines, Miss Sarah Henderson, Gordon Mercer, Johnny Bridgen, Andrew Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Henry, Darren Merriman, Huw Brine, Steve Docherty, Leo Higginbotham, Antony Metcalfe, Stephen Bristow, Paul Donelan, Michelle Hinds, rh Damian Millar, Robin Britcliffe, Sara Dorries, Ms Nadine Hoare, Simon Milling, rh Amanda Brokenshire, rh James Double, Steve Holden, Mr Richard Mills, Nigel Browne, Anthony Dowden, rh Oliver Hollinrake, Kevin Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew 129 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 130

Mohindra, Mr Gagan Smith, Chloe ‘(8) In this section and in sections 41AA, 41B and 41C— Moore, Damien Smith, Greg (a) “the Paris Agreement goal” means the objectives set Moore, Robbie Smith, Henry out in Articles 2 and 4.1 of the agreement done at Mordaunt, rh Penny Smith, rh Julian Paris on 12 December 2015; and Morris, Anne Marie Smith, Royston (b) “other climate change goal” means any climate change Morris, David Solloway, Amanda goal approved by the Secretary of State, but does not Morris, James Spencer, Dr Ben apply to a climate change goal which fails to meet the Morrissey, Joy Spencer, rh Mark objectives of the Paris Agreement goal. Morton, Wendy Stafford, Alexander 41AA Alignment with the Paris Agreement goal Mullan, Dr Kieran Stephenson, Andrew ‘(1) Trustees or managers of occupational pension schemes of Mumby-Croft, Holly Stevenson, Jane a prescribed description must develop, set and implement, and Mundell, rh David Stevenson, John from time to time review and if necessary revise, a strategy for Murray, Mrs Sheryll Stewart, Bob ensuring that their investment policy, objectives and practices Murrison, rh Dr Andrew Stewart, Iain (including stewardship activities) are aligned with the Paris Neill, Sir Robert Streeter, Sir Gary Agreement goal or other climate change goal. Nici, Lia Stride, rh Mel (2) Such a strategy is to be known as a “Paris-alignment Nokes, rh Caroline Stuart, Graham strategy”. Norman, rh Jesse Sturdy, Julian O’Brien, Neil Sunderland, James (3) The objective of a Paris-alignment strategy must be to Offord, Dr Matthew Swayne, rh Sir Desmond achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner, Opperman, Guy Syms, Sir Robert consistent with the Paris Agreement goal or other climate change goal. Parish, Neil Thomas, Derek Paterson, rh Mr Owen Throup, Maggie (4) Provision may be made by regulations— Pawsey, Mark Timpson, Edward (a) requiring the trustees or managers of a scheme, in Penning, rh Sir Mike Tolhurst, Kelly determining or revising a Paris-alignment strategy, to Penrose, John Tomlinson, Justin takeinto account prescribed matters and follow prescribed Percy, Andrew Tracey, Craig principles— Philp, Chris Trott, Laura (i) as to the level of detail required in a Paris-alignment Pincher, rh Christopher Truss, rh Elizabeth strategy; and Poulter, Dr Dan Tugendhat, Tom (ii) as to the period within which a Paris-alignment strategy must be developed, set and effected; Pow, Rebecca Vara, Mr Shailesh Prentis, Victoria Vickers, Martin (b) requiring annual reporting on the implementation of the Paris-alignment strategy and progress against the Pritchard, Mark Vickers, Matt Pursglove, Tom objective set out in subsection (3); and Villiers, rh Theresa Quin, Jeremy (c) requiring a Paris-alignment strategy to be reviewed, and Wakeford, Christian Quince, Will if necessary revised, at such intervals and on such Walker, Mr Robin Raab, rh Dominic occasions as may be prescribed.’—(Jonathan Reynolds.) Wallace, rh Mr Ben Randall, Tom This amendment enables regulations that would mandate occupational Wallis, Dr Jamie Redwood, rh John pension schemes to develop a strategy for ensuring that their Rees-Mogg, rh Mr Jacob Warburton, David investments and stewardship activities are aligning with the Paris Richards, Nicola Warman, Matt agreement goals, and include an objective of achieving net-zero Richardson, Angela Watling, Giles greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner. Roberts, Rob Webb, Suzanne Question put, That the amendment be made. Whately, Helen Robinson, Gavin The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 356. Robinson, Mary Wheeler, Mrs Heather Rosindell, Andrew Whittaker, Craig Division No. 171] [9.30 pm Ross, Douglas Whittingdale, rh Mr John AYES Rowley, Lee Wiggin, Bill Abbott, rh Ms Diane Brown, Alan Russell, Dean Wild, James Abrahams, Debbie Brown, Ms Lyn Rutley, David Williams, Craig Ali, Rushanara Brown, rh Mr Nicholas Sambrook, Gary Williamson, rh Gavin Ali, Tahir Bryant, Chris Saxby, Selaine Wilson, rh Sammy Allin-Khan, Dr Rosena Buck, Ms Karen Scully, Paul Wood, Mike Amesbury, Mike Burgon, Richard Seely, Bob Wragg, Mr William Anderson, Fleur Butler, Dawn Selous, Andrew Wright, rh Jeremy Antoniazzi, Tonia Byrne, Ian Shannon, Jim Young, Jacob Ashworth, Jonathan Byrne, rh Liam Shapps, rh Grant Zahawi, Nadhim Bardell, Hannah Cadbury, Ruth Sharma, rh Alok Barker, Paula Callaghan, Amy Shelbrooke, rh Alec Tellers for the Noes: Beckett, rh Margaret Cameron, Dr Lisa Simmonds, David Michael Tomlinson and Begum, Apsana Campbell, rh Sir Alan Skidmore, rh Chris Eddie Hughes Benn, rh Hilary Carden, Dan Betts, Mr Clive Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Question accordingly negatived. Black, Mhairi Chamberlain, Wendy The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a Blackford, rh Ian Champion, Sarah proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their Blackman, Kirsty Chapman, Douglas proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates. Blake, Olivia Charalambous, Bambos Blomfield, Paul Cherry, Joanna Clause 124 Bonnar, Steven Clark, Feryal Brabin, Tracy Cooper, Daisy CLIMATE CHANGE RISK Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben Cooper, Rosie Amendment proposed: 16, page 118, line 45, leave out Brennan, Kevin Cooper, rh Yvette subsection (8) and insert— Brock, Deidre Corbyn, rh Jeremy 131 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 132

Cowan, Ronnie Howarth, rh Sir George Owen, Sarah Stone, Jamie Coyle, Neil Huq, Dr Rupa Pennycook, Matthew Streeting, Wes Crawley, Angela Hussain, Imran Perkins, Mr Toby Sultana, Zarah Creasy, Stella Jardine, Christine Phillips, Jess Tami, rh Mark Cruddas, Jon Jarvis, Dan Phillipson, Bridget Tarry, Sam Cryer, John Johnson, Dame Diana Pollard, Luke Thewliss, Alison Cummins, Judith Johnson, Kim Powell, Lucy Thomas, Gareth Cunningham, Alex Jones, Darren Qureshi, Yasmin Thomas-Symonds, Nick Daby, Janet Jones, Gerald Rayner, Angela Thompson, Owen Davey, rh Ed Jones, rh Mr Kevan Reed, Steve Thomson, Richard David, Wayne Jones, Ruth Rees, Christina Thornberry, rh Emily Davies, Geraint Jones, Sarah Reeves, Ellie Timms, rh Stephen Davies-Jones, Alex Kane, Mike Reeves, Rachel Trickett, Jon Day, Martyn Keeley, Barbara Reynolds, Jonathan Turner, Karl De Cordova, Marsha Kendall, Liz Ribeiro-Addy, Bell Twigg, Derek Debbonaire, Thangam Khan, Afzal Rimmer, Ms Marie Twist, Liz Dhesi, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Kinnock, Stephen Rodda, Matt Webbe, Claudia Docherty-Hughes, Martin Kyle, Peter Russell-Moyle, Lloyd West, Catherine Dodds, Anneliese Lake, Ben Saville Roberts, rh Liz Western, Matt Doogan, Dave Lammy, rh Mr David Shah, Naz Whitehead, Dr Alan Dorans, Allan Lavery, Ian Sharma, Mr Virendra Whitford, Dr Philippa Doughty, Stephen Law, Chris Sheerman, Mr Barry Whitley, Mick Dowd, Peter Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Sheppard, Tommy Whittome, Nadia Dromey, Jack Lewis, Clive Siddiq, Tulip Williams, Hywel Duffield, Rosie Linden, David Slaughter, Andy Wilson, Munira Eagle, Ms Angela Lloyd, Tony Smith, Alyn Winter, Beth Eagle, Maria Long Bailey, Rebecca Smith, Cat Wishart, Pete Eastwood, Colum Lucas, Caroline Smith, Nick Yasin, Mohammad Edwards, Jonathan MacAskill, Kenny Smyth, Karin Zeichner, Daniel Efford, Clive MacNeil, Angus Brendan Sobel, Alex Elliott, Julie Madders, Justin Spellar, rh John Tellers for the Ayes: Elmore, Chris Mahmood, Mr Khalid Stephens, Chris Colleen Fletcher and Eshalomi, Florence Mahmood, Shabana Stevens, Jo Jeff Smith Esterson, Bill Malhotra, Seema Evans, Chris Maskell, Rachael NOES Farron, Tim Matheson, Christian Farry, Stephen Mc Nally, John Adams, Nigel Bradley, Ben Fellows, Marion McCabe, Steve Afolami, Bim Bradley, rh Karen Ferrier, Margaret McCarthy, Kerry Afriyie, Adam Brady, Sir Graham Flynn, Stephen McDonagh, Siobhain Ahmad Khan, Imran Braverman, rh Suella Fovargue, Yvonne McDonald, Andy Aiken, Nickie Brereton, Jack Foxcroft, Vicky McDonald, Stewart Malcolm Aldous, Peter Bridgen, Andrew Foy, Mary Kelly McDonald, Stuart C. Allan, Lucy Brine, Steve Gibson, Patricia McDonnell, rh John Amess, Sir David Bristow, Paul Gill, Preet Kaur McFadden, rh Mr Pat Anderson, Lee Britcliffe, Sara Glindon, Mary McGinn, Conor Anderson, Stuart Brokenshire, rh James Grady, Patrick McGovern, Alison Andrew, Stuart Browne, Anthony Grant, Peter McKinnell, Catherine Ansell, Caroline Bruce, Fiona Gray, Neil McLaughlin, Anne Argar, Edward Buchan, Felicity Green, Kate McMahon, Jim Atherton, Sarah Buckland, rh Robert Greenwood, Lilian McMorrin, Anna Atkins, Victoria Burghart, Alex Greenwood, Margaret Mearns, Ian Bacon, Gareth Burns, rh Conor Griffith, Nia Miliband, rh Edward Bacon, Mr Richard Butler, Rob Gwynne, Andrew Mishra, Navendu Badenoch, Kemi Cairns, rh Alun Haigh, Louise Monaghan, Carol Bailey, Shaun Campbell, Mr Gregory Hamilton, Fabian Moran, Layla Baillie, Siobhan Carter, Andy Hanna, Claire Morgan, Stephen Baker, Duncan Cartlidge, James Hanvey, Neale Morris, Grahame Baker, Mr Steve Cash, Sir William Hardy, Emma Murray, Ian Baldwin, Harriett Cates, Miriam Harman, rh Ms Harriet Murray, James Barclay, rh Steve Caulfield, Maria Hayes, Helen Nandy, Lisa Baron, Mr John Chalk, Alex Healey, rh John Newlands, Gavin Baynes, Simon Chishti, Rehman Hendrick, Sir Mark Nichols, Charlotte Bell, Aaron Churchill, Jo Hendry, Drew Nicolson, John Benton, Scott Clark, rh Greg Hill, Mike Norris, Alex Beresford, Sir Paul Clarke, Mr Simon Hillier, Meg O’Hara, Brendan Berry, rh Jake Clarke, Theo Hobhouse, Wera Olney, Sarah Bhatti, Saqib Clarke-Smith, Brendan Hodge, rh Dame Margaret Oppong-Asare, Abena Blackman, Bob Clarkson, Chris Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Osamor, Kate Blunt, Crispin Cleverly, rh James Hollern, Kate Osborne, Kate Bone, Mr Peter Clifton-Brown, Sir Geoffrey Hopkins, Rachel Oswald, Kirsten Bottomley, Sir Peter Coffey, rh Dr Thérèse Hosie, Stewart Owatemi, Taiwo Bowie, Andrew Colburn, Elliot 133 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 134

Collins, Damian Halfon, rh Robert Maclean, Rachel Sambrook, Gary Costa, Alberto Hall, Luke Mak, Alan Saxby, Selaine Courts, Robert Hammond, Stephen Malthouse, Kit Scully, Paul Cox, rh Mr Geoffrey Hancock, rh Matt Mangnall, Anthony Seely, Bob Crosbie, Virginia Hands, rh Greg Mann, Scott Selous, Andrew Crouch, Tracey Harper, rh Mr Mark Marson, Julie Shannon, Jim Daly, James Harris, Rebecca May, rh Mrs Theresa Shapps, rh Grant Davies, David T. C. Harrison, Trudy Mayhew, Jerome Sharma, rh Alok Davies, Gareth Hart, Sally-Ann Maynard, Paul Shelbrooke, rh Alec Davies, Dr James Hart, rh Simon McCartney, Jason Simmonds, David Davies, Mims Hayes, rh Sir John McCartney, Karl Skidmore, rh Chris Davies, Philip Heald, rh Sir Oliver McPartland, Stephen Smith, Chloe Davis, rh Mr David Heappey, James McVey, rh Esther Smith, Greg Davison, Dehenna Heaton-Harris, Chris Menzies, Mark Smith, Henry Dinenage, Caroline Henderson, Gordon Mercer, Johnny Smith, rh Julian Dines, Miss Sarah Henry, Darren Merriman, Huw Smith, Royston Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Higginbotham, Antony Metcalfe, Stephen Solloway, Amanda Docherty, Leo Hinds, rh Damian Millar, Robin Spencer, Dr Ben Donelan, Michelle Hoare, Simon Milling, rh Amanda Spencer, rh Mark Dorries, Ms Nadine Holden, Mr Richard Mills, Nigel Stafford, Alexander Double, Steve Hollinrake, Kevin Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew Stephenson, Andrew Dowden, rh Oliver Hollobone, Mr Philip Mohindra, Mr Gagan Stevenson, Jane Doyle-Price, Jackie Holloway, Adam Moore, Damien Stevenson, John Drax, Richard Holmes, Paul Moore, Robbie Stewart, Bob Drummond, Mrs Flick Howell, John Mordaunt, rh Penny Stewart, Iain Duddridge, James Howell, Paul Morris, Anne Marie Streeter, Sir Gary Duguid, David Huddleston, Nigel Morris, David Stride, rh Mel Duncan Smith, rh Sir Iain Hudson, Dr Neil Morris, James Stuart, Graham Dunne, rh Philip Hunt, Jane Morrissey, Joy Sturdy, Julian Eastwood, Mark Hunt, rh Jeremy Morton, Wendy Sunderland, James Edwards, Ruth Hunt, Tom Mullan, Dr Kieran Swayne, rh Sir Desmond Ellis, rh Michael Jack, rh Mr Alister Mumby-Croft, Holly Syms, Sir Robert Ellwood, rh Mr Tobias Javid, rh Sajid Mundell, rh David Thomas, Derek Elphicke, Mrs Natalie Jayawardena, Mr Ranil Murray, Mrs Sheryll Throup, Maggie Eustice, rh George Jenkin, Sir Bernard Murrison, rh Dr Andrew Timpson, Edward Evans, Dr Luke Jenkinson, Mark Neill, Sir Robert Tolhurst, Kelly Nici, Lia Tomlinson, Justin Evennett, rh Sir David Jenkyns, Andrea Nokes, rh Caroline Tracey, Craig Everitt, Ben Jenrick, rh Robert Norman, rh Jesse Trott, Laura Fabricant, Michael Johnson, Dr Caroline O’Brien, Neil Truss, rh Elizabeth Farris, Laura Johnson, Gareth Offord, Dr Matthew Tugendhat, Tom Fell, Simon Johnston, David Opperman, Guy Vara, Mr Shailesh Fletcher, Katherine Jones, Andrew Parish, Neil Vickers, Martin Fletcher, Mark Jones, rh Mr David Paterson, rh Mr Owen Vickers, Matt Fletcher, Nick Jones, Fay Pawsey, Mark Villiers, rh Theresa Ford, Vicky Jones, Mr Marcus Penning, rh Sir Mike Wakeford, Christian Foster, Kevin Jupp, Simon Penrose, John Walker, Mr Robin Fox, rh Dr Liam Kawczynski, Daniel Percy, Andrew Wallace, rh Mr Ben Francois, rh Mr Mark Kearns, Alicia Philp, Chris Wallis, Dr Jamie Frazer, Lucy Keegan, Gillian Pincher, rh Christopher Warburton, David Freer, Mike Knight, rh Sir Greg Poulter, Dr Dan Warman, Matt Fuller, Richard Knight, Julian Pow, Rebecca Watling, Giles Fysh, Mr Marcus Kruger, Danny Prentis, Victoria Webb, Suzanne Gale, rh Sir Roger Kwarteng, rh Kwasi Pritchard, Mark Whately, Helen Garnier, Mark Lamont, John Pursglove, Tom Wheeler, Mrs Heather Ghani, Ms Nusrat Largan, Robert Quin, Jeremy Gibb, rh Nick Latham, Mrs Pauline Whittaker, Craig Quince, Will Whittingdale, rh Mr John Gibson, Peter Leadsom, rh Andrea Raab, rh Dominic Wiggin, Bill Gideon, Jo Leigh, rh Sir Edward Randall, Tom Wild, James Gillan, rh Dame Cheryl Levy, Ian Redwood, rh John Williams, Craig Girvan, Paul Lewer, Andrew Rees-Mogg, rh Mr Jacob Williamson, rh Gavin Glen, John Lewis, rh Brandon Richards, Nicola Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Lewis, rh Dr Julian Richardson, Angela Wilson, rh Sammy Gove, rh Michael Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian Roberts, Rob Wood, Mike Graham, Richard Loder, Chris Robinson, Gavin Wragg, Mr William Grant, Mrs Helen Logan, Mark Robinson, Mary Wright, rh Jeremy Grayling, rh Chris Longhi, Marco Rosindell, Andrew Young, Jacob Green, Chris Lopez, Julia Ross, Douglas Zahawi, Nadhim Green, rh Damian Lopresti, Jack Rowley, Lee Tellers for the Noes: Griffith, Andrew Lord, Mr Jonathan Russell, Dean Michael Tomlinson and Griffiths, Kate Loughton, Tim Rutley, David Eddie Hughes Grundy, James Mackinlay, Craig Gullis, Jonathan Mackrory, Cherilyn Question accordingly negatived. 135 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]16 NOVEMBER 2020 Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] 136

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a On the whole, this has been a positive experience. proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their Perhaps the most significant change made in the Bill is proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates. the introduction of the new collective defined-contribution Third Reading schemes, which we will have to monitor carefully, as Queen’s consent signified. well as more substantive measures of benefit to our constituents. This legislation deserves to pass its Third 9.42 pm Reading, and it will do so with the support of the Opposition. Guy Opperman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. 9.45 pm This is a hugely— Neil Gray: Like others, I wish to put on record my Felicity Buchan: Will my hon. Friend give way? thanks to the Clerks, Huw Yardley and Kenneth Fox, and to Djuna Thurley in the Library, for their support. Guy Opperman: How could I possibly not give way to I also thank our SNP researchers Zoe Carre and my hon. Friend! Linda Nagy for their fantastic assistance, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Was that “On for his considerable and informed support in Committee. that point”? This Bill takes matters forward in the pensions world. Felicity Buchan: My hon. Friend is aware of my It could have gone further, and I regret that it does not, constituent Mr John Walker’s landmark case in the but we thank the Minister and the other parties for Supreme Court, where he secured equal pension rights working together constructively on such an important for single-sex married couples. Will my hon. Friend piece of legislation. We look with interest to its further assure me that although that currently is the law in the stages in the other place. UK, he will find a way to enshrine it in statute? 9.46 pm Guy Opperman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on Stephen Timms: I echo the thanks that have been making her point so eloquently and intervening speedily expressed by all three Front-Bench spokespeople.I welcome in this short Third Reading speech. I can confirm that the content of the Bill and the progress made on collective the law stays as per the Supreme Court decision, even defined-contribution schemes and the pensions dashboard. after we leave the EU. I stand by what I wrote to her in I was looking back at a report of the Work and Pensions the detailed letter that I drafted to her in October, a Committee published before I became the Chair, which copy of which I will place in the House of Commons said: Library to set the matter firmly on the record. “A pensions dashboard is long overdue”— Before I was so generously interrupted, I was saying then I looked at the date of the report, and it was 2015. that this is a hugely important piece of legislation with It will still be another three years before we get that cross-party support, for which I thank colleagues from dashboard, but the Bill is undoubtedly a very important all parties, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, step forward in that journey. Erdington (Jack Dromey), who cannot be with us tonight. The Bill will affect the lives of millions of our constituents I welcome the commitments that the Minister made throughout the country; make pensions safer, better on scams and addressing the changes that are needed. I and greener; stop scams; introduce CDCs; create pension was disappointed that when I intervened on him on dashboards; and crack down on callous crooks who Report, he was not able to reaffirm the commitment take away our constituents’ pensions. It also legislates that the Department appeared to have, and which was for a new type of pension scheme, establishing the expressed on his behalf in the other place on 1 May dashboard and making pensions fundamentally greener. 2018, that Pension Wise should become “the norm”. I commend the Bill to the House. Guy Opperman: I do—I said so. 9.44 pm Stephen Timms: That is welcome. We agree, then, that Jonathan Reynolds: I thank all colleagues for their taking up Pension Wise guidance should be the norm, participation in today’s proceedings and throughout and I look forward to working with him on making that the passage of the Bill. In particular, I thank the Minister; a reality from the very distant place we are in at the my hon. Friends the Members for Feltham and moment. I welcome the progress that the Bill represents, Heston () and for Westminster North and I look forward to it being firmly on the statute (Ms Buck), who led for the Opposition in Committee; book. and Sophia Morrell and Lily Lewis from our staff 9.48 pm teams. I pay tribute to the shadow Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington Wendy Chamberlain: There is nothing more for me to (Jack Dromey). He is a peerless source of knowledge, say, other than to add my thanks to Members of this wisdom and advice, and he has played a significant role House and the other place for their work on the Bill. in this legislation. Unfortunately, he could not participate There is much to recommend the Bill, and I look in Committee or today’s proceedings because the House forward to seeing how it progresses. does not have in place the measures required to allow all MPs to participate safely on an equal basis during 9.49 pm the pandemic. This is clearly not a satisfactory situation, Jim Shannon: I thank Members and the Minister for and I know that many Government Members concur their contributions on Third Reading. I look forward to with that. I welcome the moves today to finally get bringing to the Minister’s door issues on behalf of my this resolved. constituents,which he has been very generous in responding 137 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Business without Debate 138 to in the past. I know that he will not be averse to me EXITING THE (AGRICULTURE) calling at his door, and that as always, he will respond in That the draft Organic Products (Production and Control) a positive fashion. That is the sign of a good Minister. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before Question put and agreed to. this House on 13 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.) Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Question agreed to. amendments. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Business without Debate EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION (ROAD TRAFFIC) That the draft Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which DELEGATED LEGISLATION were laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.—(David Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Duguid.) Order No. 118(6)), Question agreed to. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION Order No. 118(6)), (PUBLIC PROCUREMENT) EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION That the draft Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 7 October, (ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION) be approved.—(David Duguid.) That the draft New Heavy Duty Vehicles (Carbon Dioxide Question agreed to. Emission Performance Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 13 October, Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing be approved.—(David Duguid.) Order No. 118(6)), Question agreed to. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION Order No. 118(6)), That the draft Definition of Qualifying Northern Ireland Goods (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this RATING AND VALUATION House on 7 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.) That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention, Levy Question agreed to. and Safety Net and Levy Account: Basis of Distribution) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing House on 7 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.) Order No. 118(6)), Question agreed to.

EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION PETITION (ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS) That the draft Electronic Communications and Wireless Telegraphy Recognition of sub postmasters (Amendment) (European Electronic Communications Code and EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 9.52 pm 12 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.) Question agreed to. Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP): I rise to present a petition from the residents of Linlithgow Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing and East Falkirk regarding sub-postmasters. Post offices Order No. 118(6)), are a lifeline for the communities that they serve, and according to the National Federation of SubPostmasters, EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION they are a support mechanism for as many as 300,000 (ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WILDLIFE) vulnerable people, but they may not be able to continue That the draft Environment and Wildlife (Miscellaneous to function if the Post Office subsidy is not maintained. Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid The petition, with which I fully agree, reads as follows: before this House on 12 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.) The petition of residents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk, Question agreed to. Declares that sub postmasters and their staff carry out valuable Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing work daily to support their local communities; further declares Order No. 118(6)), that they provide financial services that ensure the physical and psychological wellbeing of vulnerable people; and further declares that all sub postmasters should be commended for their efforts EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION and their role should be preserved by a UK Government commitment (ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION) to the Post Office network. That the draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on urges the Government to ensure the extension of the Post Office 12 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.) subsidy beyond 2021; and make a formal statement on the integral Question agreed to. role that sub postmasters play in supporting their communities. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing And the petitioners remain, etc Order No. 118(6)), [P002624] 139 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Leaseholders and Cladding: 140 Greenwich and Woolwich Leaseholders and Cladding: have contracts in place by the 31 December deadline, Greenwich and Woolwich given that the average time taken from the release of funds to having one in place is between 25 and 30 weeks. Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House In responding, can the Minister confirm that he accepts do now adjourn.—(David Duguid.) that all the deadlines in the fund will have to be pushed back, including the 31 December deadline and the Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Before I call March deadline for people being on the ground and in Matthew Pennycook, I remind Members that because place? When can this House expect an update to that of the technicalities, I shall put the Question again at effect? 10 o’clock. The size of the building safety fund will clearly have to increase. It is well known that the Government’s own 9.54 pm estimate is that the total cost of remediating non-ACM Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab): buildings will be in the order of £3 billion to £3.5 billion. May I begin by thanking you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for The current size of the fund is only large enough to granting the debate, and the Minister for taking time cover around 600 buildings, so even if a significant from his schedule to respond? proportion of the 2,784 applications made to date are deemed ineligible or are rejected, it is patently obvious The debate concerns a subject of the utmost important that the £1 billion of funding that has been allocated to thousands, if not tens of thousands, of leaseholders will still not be enough. in my south-east London constituency, and to hundreds of thousands more people across the country. For those I appreciate that there are good reasons for the who have not followed the twists and turns of this Government not to rush to announce additional funding, scandal since 2017, it is easy to forget just how staggering and I also trust that the Department is trying to make the scale of the cladding and mortgage crisis truly is. the funds that do exist go further by doing everything Its impact on an urban constituency of the kind that I possible to convince developers to contribute to remedial represent has been, and continues to be, enormous. costs in ways that do not prejudice applications to it, Within Greenwich and Woolwich, the external wall but it surely cannot be the case, as it is at present, that systems of more than 20 privately owned buildings some affected leaseholders in non-ACM buildings over across seven developments have been found to have 18 metres will receive support from the taxpayer while aluminium composite material cladding of the type others will not. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister found on Grenfell Tower. The external wall systems of a could assure me—I phrase this carefully in order that he further 59 buildings have been found to contain might—that the Government have not ruled out additional some other kind of combustible material, and many of public support for non-ACM remediation beyond the those also have significant building safety defects, moneys already committed. ranging from non-existent fire stopping to defective (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op): I thank compartmentalisation. Thousands of leaseholders in my hon. Friend for securing this important debate on a countless other buildings locally—many with no defects big issue for my constituents in Vauxhall. On the funds whatever—remain mortgage prisoners or have had to that the Government have made available, does my hon. absorb the significant costs of intrusive inspections to Friend think the Government should make provide gain an EWS1 form. funding for waking watch, for which, in some cases, I would be the first to concede that there are no constituents are being asked to pay in excess of £30,000 simple or straightforward answers to this crisis, but a month just to stay in their buildings? Without that, based on my involvement in scores of cases over recent they would have to evacuate the building. years, of which there are far too many to cover individually, there are some obvious things that the Government can Matthew Pennycook: I thank my hon. Friend for that and should do immediately to better support leaseholders, intervention. I agree that the costs of waking watch are as well as a pressing need to provide greater clarity on absolutely staggering. Leaseholders are already paying the fundamental issue of leaseholder liability. In my those costs, as she makes clear, in a way that is financially remarks, I intend to touch on three specific areas where unsustainable for many of them. I will pick up on that I believe decisive Government action is required—namely, point later, not only in what I will say on the fund, but in public funding, buildings insurance and mortgages—before talking about leaseholder liability and whether leaseholders addressing that more fundamental issue of leaseholder are being protected in the way that has been suggested. liability. Finally, the scope of public funding more generally Turning first to Government funding, while leaseholders must also be revisited. It is Government guidance that is will not easily forget the fact that previous Ministers ultimately driving the need for remediation and it is had to be cajoled over several years into making various simply not equitable that leaseholders in buildings over funding commitments, the public funding that the 18 metres in height, whether those buildings are covered Government have made available for both ACM and in ACM or non-ACM cladding, are assisted by the state non-ACM remediation is welcome, but further changes while those in buildings below that threshold are left to will need to be made, and I will speak briefly to three. fend for themselves. The Minister must surely recognise It is obvious that the deadlines involved in the building that the Government cannot argue that height should safety fund will have to be revised. The latest statistics not be the sole, or even the— released by the Department make clear that only 139 applications have been processed since 31 July—an 10 pm average of just 17 a week. Even if the process accelerates Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)). markedly in the weeks ahead, there is no chance that Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House more than a tiny proportion of eligible projects will do now adjourn.—(David Duguid.) 141 Leaseholders and Cladding: 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Leaseholders and Cladding: 142 Greenwich and Woolwich Greenwich and Woolwich Matthew Pennycook: As I was saying, the Minister I could have had a whole Adjournment debate on the must surely recognise that the Government cannot argue mortgage crisis alone, such is the scale of the problem it that height should not be the sole, or even the main, is causing across the country and for the housing market. determinant of investigations but then make height the For all the hopes originally invested in it—and let us be main criterion for access to public funding. Nor is it clear it was an initiative that the Government were equitable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall involved in developing even if they decided to distance (Florence Eshalomi) touched on, that leaseholders continue themselves prior to its announcement—it has been clear to bear the exorbitant costs, the median of which in for some time that the external wall fire review process London stands at £256 a month per household, of has not resolved the difficulties caused within the mortgage interim fire safety measures either through service charge lending market through changes in Government building increases or the draining of sinking funds. safety guidance. The guidance is not sufficiently clear. Too many (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con): I buildings have been brought within the scope of the congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important process.The issues around professional indemnity insurance Adjournment debate. I have a building under 18 metres are too thorny to resolve, and the scale of the remediation in Carshalton and Wallington that is similarly affected. challenge is far bigger than originally assumed. The Does he agree that it is not the leaseholder’s fault that problem cannot be resolved by industry alone—something they are living in a building that has this cladding on it, that I hope the Government have also now accepted. I and therefore any remediation that we offer has to do not pretend to have the answer, but I would be accept that, and we need to support them through the grateful if the Minister could at least provide leaseholders process? with some reassurance that his Department is trying to devise a system that facilitates the valuation and sale of Matthew Pennycook: The hon. Member makes an properties that have some fire risk or an unconfirmed excellent point, which I will pick up on towards the end external wall façade, and to ensure that all buildings can of my remarks. To my mind, either the Government are be surveyed within a reasonable timeframe. responsible, in terms of defective regulation over many years, or builders are responsible, in terms of defective There are many other issues I could cover—not least buildings. I cannot accept that the leaseholder, who of what more can be done to speed up the pace of remediation all the parties involved bears the least responsibility, is more generally—but decisive Government action in the potentially being landed with the costs. The leaseholders three areas I have covered would go a long way to I represent cannot understand how that potential still improving the situation for affected leaseholders in my hangs over their heads. constituency and around the country. However, even if each were to be resolved in short order, that would not I believe that eligibility for the building safety fund entirely alleviate the concerns, because there remains an should be overhauled to cover buildings between 11 and ambiguity on the fundamental issue of leaseholder liability. 18 metres in height. The Government should re-open the private sector remediation fund for ACM-clad buildings Strip away all the complexity in this crisis and the in the same height category, and secondary costs as they fundamental questions have always been: how can we relate to any affected building should be covered. I make buildings safe more quickly, and who is going to would be grateful if the Minister could indicate whether pay to clean up this mess? It has always been my firm the Government are at least willing to consider those view that it would be indefensible—I turn to the point changes. made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington Buildings insurance is a growing problem, and the (Elliot Colburn)—to pass on to leaseholders even a Government must step in to help to find a solution. fraction of the £15 billion that the Select Committee on With the insurance industry moving to limit its exposure Housing, Communities and Local Government estimates on buildings covered in combustible materials of any will be required to fully remediate all buildings over kind, leaseholders in my constituency are finding it 18 metres and the unknown costs of remediating buildings increasingly difficult to keep their buildings insured or, between 11 and 18 metres. As I said earlier, of all the if they are able to do so, they are having to absorb parties caught up in this scandal, leaseholders bear no soaring premium costs. responsibility whatsoever for it. The case of Blenheim Court, a 24-unit development Leaving aside the fact that over the past three years in east Greenwich, is worth citing as it is a good countless leaseholders across the country have been hit example of what is happening on the ground. Having with huge bills for interim fire safety costs and remediation, secured several extensions to its policy as the right to and that the Government have entirely failed to protect manage sought to progress plans for remedial works, them, until a few months ago the Government’s stated the insurer in question made it clear that the risk position, repeated by successive Secretaries and Ministers involved no longer fell within its underwriting appetite of State from the Dispatch Box, had always been that and the leaseholders faced the prospect of seeing their leaseholders should be fully protected. The then Housing building uninsured, with the heightened risk of repossession Minister, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire that that entailed. Thankfully, at the eleventh hour they (Kit Malthouse), set out the position succinctly on secured a policy with a consortium, but at an eye-watering 22 January last year, when he made it clear that the cost of £163,000 for just 12 months’ cover. With the Government would cost of renewals on affected buildings increasing across “ensure that leaseholders do not bear the cost of this situation in the board, does the Minister accept that to protect any circumstance.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2019; Vol. 653, leaseholders adequately the Government will ultimately c. 135.] have to support the insurance industry, in all likelihood Fast-forward to 16 October this year, and, in response by acting as an insurer of last resort, in bringing forward to a written question, the current Housing Minister a temporary solution? stated only that the Government were looking to protect 143 Leaseholders and Cladding: 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Leaseholders and Cladding: 144 Greenwich and Woolwich Greenwich and Woolwich [Matthew Pennycook] overstate the abject misery it has caused. There is, of course, plenty of anger, but the overriding feeling on the leaseholders from “unaffordable costs”, subsequently part of leaseholders I have spoken to over the years is defined by one of his colleagues as anything short of one of utter desperation—a feeling driven by the belief bankruptcy.Likewise, in evidence to the Select Committee not only that they are trapped in their homes physically, on 19 October, the Minister for Building Safety and mentally and financially, but that they have been all but Communities stated plainly that abandoned by their Government. I hope that in his “some costs would fall on leaseholders—they would not be response the Minister disproves that belief and makes it protected from all costs”. clear that the people at the centre of this crisis can Hon. and right hon. Members,as well as leaseholders across expect not just comforting words in this Chamber, but the country, concluded that the Government’s position action to remediate their buildings, and action that will had changed, and they worried accordingly. afford them more protection financially than they look likely to receive at present. Today at departmental questions, in a response to a question from the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East 10.10 pm (Mr Betts), the Housing Minister argued that there had The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher): I been no change of position and that the Government congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich and are “quite clear” that they “do not expect” and “do not Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) on securing this important want” leaseholders to bear the cost of remediation. debate on a matter of significant importance not only If that is the case, whyhas Michael Wade been charged with to him and his constituency but, as we have heard, to “rapidly identifying financing solutions that protect leaseholders” the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) not from costs entirely but from “unaffordable costs”, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and and why does the draft Building Safety Bill, a legislative Wallington (Elliot Colburn), and to my hon. Friend the vehicle that should have been used to properly protect Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) leaseholders in the way Ministers promised repeatedly and many other Members across the House. It is a from the Dispatch Box, seek instead to render leaseholders national concern, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member liable for defects, irrespective of the terms of their for Greenwich and Woolwich for his remarks and his individual leases? doughty campaign on behalf of his constituents, and I As I stand here this evening, not only are leaseholders will try to address the points he raised during the course more confused than ever about the Government’s position of my remarks. on their liability,but even if it remains the case that—again, First, however,I will provide some context. Weestablished I quote the Minister’s words earlier—the Government the building safety programme within days of the Grenfell “do not expect” and “do not want” leaseholders to bear Tower fire, and its aim has always been to ensure that the cost of remediation, the Government actually have residents of high-rise blocks are safe now and in the to take steps to ensure that that is the case. future. Our intention has been clear from the outset: Perhaps I am being unduly cynical, but I and leaseholders that unsafe aluminium composite material of the type in my constituency fear that, confronted with a situation found on Grenfell Tower and other dangerous cladding where, in all likelihood, more than half the country’s must be removed from high-rise residential buildings. It stock of buildings over 18 metres have had or still have is therefore our priority to ensure unsafe ACM cladding some kind of building safety defect that requires fixing, is removed and replaced swiftly, protecting leaseholders and unprepared on the one hand to openly admit that from unaffordable costs. this crisis is the result of profound regulatory failure We want to see the completion of remedial works under successive Governments but on the other hand by the end of 2021, as the Select Committee report not willing to go after developers more assertively on recommends. While many responsible building owners and the grounds of mass non-compliance with the regulations developers—including Pemberstone,Barratt Developments, in place over many years, the Government have decided Legal & General, Mace, Peabody and Aberdeen Standard that the only way through this morass is for them to Investments—have taken action to remediate and fund cover a small proportion of the costs, to encourage but the remediation of their buildings, some have not. Too not compel developers and building owners to bear many building owners and managing agents in the some of the costs, and to allow the latter to pass on the private sector have been too slow in getting remediation remaining costs to leaseholders using the mechanisms work started, and that is why the Government have that the Government will have afforded them to do so. intervened with the funding and the specialist support I truly hope that I am wrong, and if that is the case that we have provided. We will not tolerate any further the Minister has a perfect opportunity this evening to delays.Where building owners are failing to make acceptable make clear precisely why,but if leaseholders did ultimately progress, those responsible should expect local authorities end up picking up the lion’s share of the bill, not only and fire and rescue services to take tougher enforcement would it be an outrage but it would force untold numbers action. of leaseholders—even if the blow was limited by some At the end of October, of the 460 identified high-rise form of cap or a long-term payment system—into buildings with ACM cladding, 363 buildings—that is 79% financial hardship and, in many cases, ruin. For many —have either completed remediation or had their ACM leaseholders, all but the most superficial costs are likely cladding systems removed. If we include the social to be unaffordable. housing sector, that figure rises to 97%. I will finish by saying this: any Member who has Werecognise that in London there is a disproportionate spent any time listening to the testimonies of leaseholders number of unsafe cladded high-rise buildings, so we affected by this scandal will know that it is hard to have convened two London summits since September, 145 Leaseholders and Cladding: 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Leaseholders and Cladding: 146 Greenwich and Woolwich Greenwich and Woolwich bringing together the Mayor, key local authorities— own Department has published. On developer liability, including Greenwich—and the London Fire Brigade, to the Minister has again said “we expect”. I have sat in agree an action plan for accelerating the remediation of this Chamber and heard successive Ministers say that buildings, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of they “expect” developers and building owners to come State and my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh have been forward, that it is morally right that they do so and that instrumental in that process. nothing is being taken off the table, but here we are in Overall, the Government have set aside, as the House the same position many months if not years later. What will know, £1.6 billion in funding. That covers the are the Government actually going to do to compel remediation not only of ACM cladding but of other developers and building owners to contribute more? types of unsafe cladding from high-rise residential buildings in the private and social housing sectors, and we have Christopher Pincher: I assure the hon. Gentleman been guided in our approach by the recommendations that we have made significant progress with the processing of the Hackitt report. We made this money available to of the applications. I look forward in due course—I support the remediation of unsafe cladding, and a large hope it will be soon—to giving him better news than he proportion of that support will protect leaseholders from supposes may be out there. those costs. Wehave been clear that it is unacceptable for leaseholders We recognise that wider remediation costs will need to have to worry about cladding remediation costs to fix to be met to ensure the safety of existing blocks of flats. safety defects in their buildings that they did not cause. However, as I am sure the House will accept, public That is why—I say it again—where developers or building funding does not absolve the industry from taking owners have been unable or unwilling to pay we have responsibility for any failures that led to unsafe cladding introduced funding schemes, providing that £1.6 billion materials being put on these buildings in the first place. of remediation to accelerate the pace of work and meet That is why we expect developers, investors and building the costs of remediating the highest-risk and most owners who have the means to pay to take responsibility expensive defects. We recognise that there will be wider and cover the costs of remediation themselves, without works. We are accelerating work with leaseholders and passing on costs to leaseholders. We have heard that the financial sector on solutions to deal with those some are doing that, and they are to be commended, wider works, and we believe that there will be a combination and others must follow their lead. That is the case for of options to deliver a solution—there will not be a more than 50% of privately owned high-rise residential quick fix, as the hon. Gentleman put it. I want to buildings with unsafe ACM cladding, and we expect update the House and leaseholders on that set of options developers and owners to step up in similar ways for as soon as I can. other kinds of unsafe cladding. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned waking watch, We have always acknowledged that materials other as did the hon. Member for Vauxhall. I know that than ACM are of concern, and we have been providing leaseholders have very significant concerns about the advice on their removal to building owners since 2017. costs of interim measures, which have been heightened The highest priority has, as we have heard, been the due to the covid-19 emergency. Waking watch is a removal of the type of ACM cladding used on Grenfell short-term tool; it is no substitute for remediation. It is Tower, because it poses the most severe safety risk, but by targeting remediation funding where it is needed other unsafe cladding materials must also be removed. most—by removing and replacing dangerous cladding— As such, and for those cases where costs present a that we can help make those homes safer more quickly financial barrier to the pace of remediation, we have and dispense with waking watches. taken action. In March, we announced that additional However, I recognise residents’ concerns about the £1 billion of funding, through the building safety fund, costs of waking watch measures and the lack of for the remediation of unsafe non-ACM cladding in the transparency about those costs. That is why we have social and private residential sectors. The building safety collected and published information on waking watches. fund is available for high-rise buildings with unsafe The data will enable those who have commissioned non-ACM cladding, such as those types of high-pressure waking watches to make comparisons and challenge laminate. We are already working to advance eligible providers about unreasonable costs.Wehave also identified, applications to the fund to the next stage so that we can as a result of that work, that it can be cheaper to install begin the remediation process as quickly as possible. alarm mechanisms rather than use waking watches. We The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich suggested will, of course, keep the situation under review. that there were very few processed applications, but I can assure him that there are many more than just a few. Florence Eshalomi: On the specific issue of waking I look forward to presenting a fuller report, so that by watches, a number of constituents represented by me, the end of March 2021 we will see that that funding has my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich been allocated in full, as we promised. (Matthew Pennycook), the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and many others are Although this funding is a much-needed step to make probably watching tonight and about to go to bed. homes safer, we still expect a significant proportion of Does the Minister agree that they will not be able to the remediation of unsafe non-ACM cladding to be sleep because of not just the cost of the waking watch, provided by those responsible for the original work. but additional costs for which they may be billed? Matthew Pennycook: I thank the Minister for the detail The Minister talks about options, but these people he has provided in his response. I should make it clear have no option to rent or sell—there are no options for that the statistics are his Department’s own published some of those leaseholders. They want the Government statistics, so if he has different figures, I urge him to to step up now and look at how to address the interim bring those forward in the monthly publication so that costs—not costs in the future. For them, there are no we can see them. I am putting figures to him that his options and there is no way out. They feel trapped, now. 147 Leaseholders and Cladding: 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Leaseholders and Cladding: 148 Greenwich and Woolwich Greenwich and Woolwich Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the hon. Lady; I to inspect high-rise buildings and sanctions to tackle entirely understand the great difficulty that many of her irresponsible behaviour. We remain consistent in our constituents and others will feel. It is a very worrying commitment to take forward a comprehensive programme situation for them. That is why we have put aside so of reform and to end unfair practices in the leasehold much money this financial year to help remediate those market. buildings that have no other way of speedy remediation Progress has been made since the hon. Member for and that need it most. As I said to her, we will keep the Greenwich and Woolwich spoke in the Westminster situation under review. Hall debate back, I think, in February. Homes are being The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich also made safer. Some 97% of buildings with ACM have, or raised the question of EWS1 and mortgages. It is wrong are now in the process of, remediation. We are already for leaseholders to find themselves unable to sell their working to advance eligible applicants for the £1 billion homes due to lending restrictions. I am aware—we debated building safety scheme to the next stage, so we can this earlier today—that EWS1 forms created by the begin the remediation process as quickly as possible. I industry to assist valuations of high-rise buildings of can assure him that more progress than perhaps he more than 18 metres are being asked for in some instances thinks has been made and is being made. for buildings under 18 metres. The Government do not support that blanket approach to EWS1 forms or buildings. (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab): Well, It is probably worth my repeating that, as the House tell us then. will know, the EWS1 form is not a Government form but produced by the Royal Institution of Chartered Christopher Pincher: All in good time.Wehave appointed Surveyors. Not all lenders require it; some lenders use other a specialist set of consultants to increase the pace of tools. The Secretary of State has been working with the remediation and we have introduced the Fire Safety Bill finance sector and my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh to to strengthen enforcement action. The hard work continues. find more nuanced mechanisms to deliver a satisfactory We have published the draft Building Safety Bill, which outcome for residents and leaseholders, but we do not is a once-in-a-generation change to the building safety support a blanket approach to the use of EWS1 forms regime. It will be instrumental not only in shaping on buildings. Buildings below the height of 18 metres future policy to allow the new regime to prevent safety should not have EWS1 forms applied to them. Buildings defects occurring in the first place, but in ensuring that which do not have external wall systems should not people are safe and feel safe in their homes. have EWS1 forms applied to them. We must work with We will continue to work tirelessly and, I hope, across all the vigour and determination that we can muster the Chamber, to bring about the lasting change we with the financial services sector to persuade them to need, so that absolutely everyone in our country lives take a different course. somewhere which is decent, which is secure, which is We want residents to feel safe in their homes and we safe, which is their own and which they can be proud to want them to feel empowered. Residents will be back at call, and we can be proud to call, their home. the heart of the system and measures in the draft Question put and agreed to. Building Safety Bill will make that a reality. The new regime will give residents a stronger voice in an improved system of fire and structural safety, overseen by a more 10.27 pm effective regulatory framework, including stronger powers House adjourned. 149 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote 150

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote Member eligible for proxy vote Nominated proxy

The following is the list of Members currently certified Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston Patrick Grady as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated and Bellshill) (SNP) as their proxy: Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire Stuart Andrew and Kincardine) (Con) Member eligible for proxy vote Nominated proxy Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen (Lab/ Chris Elmore Co-op) Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Mansfield) (Con) Stuart Andrew Stoke Newington) (Lab) Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Chris Elmore Mr (Exeter) (Lab) Chris Elmore Saddleworth (Lab) Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) Stuart Andrew Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) Stuart Andrew Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West ) (Lab) Chris Elmore Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) Stuart Andrew (North West Stuart Andrew (Cities of London and Stuart Andrew ) (Con) Westminster) (Con) (Winchester) (Con) (Waveney) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Hyndburn) (Con) Stuart Andrew Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Chris Elmore James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Stuart Andrew Bow) (Lab) Sidcup) (Con) (Birmingham, Hall Green) Chris Elmore Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon Patrick Grady (Lab) (SNP) (Telford) (Con) Mark Spencer Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) Chris Elmore Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) Chris Elmore Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) Chris Elmore Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) Chris Elmore Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) Chris Elmore Sir David Amess (Southend West) Stuart Andrew (Lab) (Con) Robert Buckland (South Swindon) Stuart Andrew Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) Chris Elmore (Con) Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) Mark Spencer (Brentwood and Ongar) Stuart Andrew Stuart Anderson ( Stuart Andrew (Con) South West) (Con) Richard Burgon ( East) (Lab) Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Eastbourne) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Bournemouth West) Stuart Andrew (Gower) (Lab) Chris Elmore (Con) Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) Stuart Andrew Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Wrexham) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Liverpool, West ) Chris Elmore Victoria Atkins (Louth and Stuart Andrew (Lab) Horncastle) (Con) (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) Chris Elmore Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) Stuart Andrew (Lab) (Con) (Brentford and Chris Elmore Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) Stuart Andrew Isleworth) (Lab) (Con) (Vale of Glamorgan) Stuart Andrew (Stroud) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Con) Steve Barclay (North East Stuart Andrew Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) Patrick Grady Cambridgeshire) (Con) (SNP) Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) Patrick Grady Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Patrick Grady Mr John Baron (Basildon and Stuart Andrew Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) Billericay) (Con) Mr Gregory Campbell (East Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) Stuart Andrew Londonderry) (DUP) Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) Chris Elmore (Warrington South) (Con) Stuart Andrew Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) Stuart Andrew (South Suffolk) (Con) Stuart Andrew Sir (Mole Valley) (Con) Stuart Andrew Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) Stuart Andrew Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) Stuart Andrew (Penistone and Stuart Andrew (Con) Stocksbridge) (Con) Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) Chris Elmore Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) Stuart Andrew Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire Patrick Grady Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) Chris Elmore South) (SNP) Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and Patrick Grady Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Patrick Grady West Fife) (SNP) Lochaber) (SNP) Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) Patrick Grady Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) Stuart Andrew (SNP) Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) Patrick Grady Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) Stuart Andrew (SNP) Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) Chris Elmore Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) Chris Elmore Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough Stuart Andrew Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) Chris Elmore South and East Cleveland) (Con) (Lab) (Stafford) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Reigate) (Con) Stuart Andrew Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) Stuart Andrew Mr Peter Bone () (Con) Stuart Andrew (Con) 151 Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote16 NOVEMBER 2020 Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote 152

Member eligible for proxy vote Nominated proxy Member eligible for proxy vote Nominated proxy

Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Stuart Andrew Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) Chris Elmore Middleton) (Con) Oliver Dowden () (Con) Stuart Andrew James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) Stuart Andrew (South Dorset) (Con) Stuart Andrew Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) Stuart Andrew Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) Chris Elmore (Con) (Lab) (Folkestone and Stuart Andrew Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) Stuart Andrew Hythe) (Con) (Con) Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) Wendy Chamberlain James Duddridge ( and Stuart Andrew (West Lancashire) (Lab) Chris Elmore Southend East) (Con) (Islington North) (Ind) Bell Ribeiro-Addy Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) Chris Elmore Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) Stuart Andrew Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) (Con) Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) Chris Elmore (East Surrey) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Garston and Halewood) Chris Elmore Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) Patrick Grady (Lab) Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Stuart Andrew (Dewsbury) (Con) Stuart Andrew Devon) (Con) (Rushcliffe) (Con) Stuart Andrew Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton Patrick Grady Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) Chris Elmore East) (SNP) Michael Ellis (Northampton North) Stuart Andrew Stella Creasy () (Lab) Chris Elmore (Con) (Ynys Môn) (Con) Stuart Andrew Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) Stuart Andrew Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Rebecca Harris Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co- Chris Elmore Aylesford) (Con) op) Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Chris Elmore (Sefton Central) (Lab) Chris Elmore Rainham) (Lab) George Eustice (Camborne and Stuart Andrew John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) Chris Elmore Redruth) (Con) (Lab) Dr (Bosworth) (Con) Stuart Andrew Judith Cummins (Bradford South) Chris Elmore Sir (Bexleyheath and Stuart Andrew (Lab) Crayford) (Con) Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) Chris Elmore (Lab) (Lichfield) (Con) Stuart Andrew Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) Chris Elmore Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) Stuart Andrew James Daly (Bury North) (Con) Stuart Andrew (North Down) (Alliance) Wendy Chamberlain (Kingston and Surbiton) Wendy Chamberlain Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Patrick Grady (LD) Wishaw) (SNP) Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stuart Andrew Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Jonathan Edwards Stamford) (Con) Hamilton West) (Ind) Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/ Chris Evans (South Ribble) Stuart Andrew Co-op) (Con) Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) Stuart Andrew Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) Patrick Grady Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) Chris Elmore (SNP) Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Stuart Andrew Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) Stuart Andrew Howden) (Con) Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) Stuart Andrew Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Patrick Grady Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) Chris Elmore Falkirk) (SNP) Dr (North Somerset) (Con) Stuart Andrew Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) Chris Elmore Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) Chris Elmore (Lab) (Lab) (Battersea) Rachel Hopkins Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) Bell Ribeiro-Addy Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) Chris Elmore (Lab) (Lab) Mr (Rayleigh and Stuart Andrew Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) Stuart Andrew Wickford) (Con) Miss (Derbyshire Dales) Stuart Andrew Lucy Frazer (South East Stuart Andrew (Con) Cambridgeshire) (Con) Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Patrick Grady George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) Dunbartonshire) (SNP) Marcus Fysh () (Con) Stuart Andrew Sir (Lagan Valley) (DUP) Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) Stuart Andrew Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Wyre Forest) (Con) Stuart Andrew Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) Patrick Grady Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) Stuart Andrew Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Patrick Grady Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Stuart Andrew Cumnock) (SNP) Littlehampton) (Con) Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) Stuart Andrew Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Patrick Grady (Con) Arran) (SNP) (St Austell and Newquay) Stuart Andrew (Stoke-on-Trent Central) Stuart Andrew (Con) (Con) 153 Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote16 NOVEMBER 2020 Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote 154

Member eligible for proxy vote Nominated proxy Member eligible for proxy vote Nominated proxy

Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Chris Elmore Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Chris Elmore Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) Sunderland West) (Lab) Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Stuart Andrew Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) Chris Elmore Amersham) (Con) (Gravesham) (Con) Maria Caulfield Paul Girvan (South ) (DUP) Gavin Robinson Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) Patrick Grady John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) Stuart Andrew Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) Chris Elmore Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) Chris Elmore (Henley) (Con) Stuart Andrew Mr (Scarborough and Stuart Andrew Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) Stuart Andrew Whitby) (Con) Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) Stuart Andrew Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Con) Mrs (Maidstone and The Stuart Andrew Dr (Penrith and The Stuart Andrew Weald) (Con) Border) (Con) Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) Patrick Grady (Loughborough) (Con) Stuart Andrew Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Patrick Grady Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Epsom and Ewell) Stuart Andrew Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Stuart Andrew (Con) Galloway) (Con) (Ashford) (Con) Stuart Andrew Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) Wendy Chamberlain (LD) (Stretford and Urmston) Chris Elmore (Lab) Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) Chris Elmore Lilian Greenwood ( South) Chris Elmore (Bromsgrove) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Lab) Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Stuart Andrew (Wirral West) Chris Elmore Hampshire) (Con) (Lab) (Workington) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Arundel and South Stuart Andrew (Morley and Stuart Andrew Downs) (Con) Outwood) (Con) Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Chris Elmore Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) Stuart Andrew Reddish) (Lab) Dr (Sleaford and Stuart Andrew Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) Rebecca Harris North Hykeham) (Con) Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) Stuart Andrew Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Chris Elmore Hull North) (Lab) Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) Chris Elmore (Lab) (Brecon and Radnorshire( Stuart Andrew (Con) (Wimbledon) ( Stuart Andrew Con) (Merthyr Tydfil and Chris Elmore Rhymney) (Lab) Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) Stuart Andrew Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) Stuart Andrew Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) Stuart Andrew (Con) Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) Chris Elmore (Belfast South) (SDLP) Ben Lake Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) Chris Elmore Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Patrick Grady ( and Sale Chris Elmore Cowdenbeath) (SNP) East) (Lab) Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull Chris Elmore (Shrewsbury and Stuart Andrew West and Hessle) (Lab) Atcham) (Con) Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Chris Elmore Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) Stuart Andrew Peckham) (Lab) (Con) Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and Stuart Andrew Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) Stuart Andrew South Pembrokeshire) (Con) Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles Chris Elmore Sir John Hayes (South Holland and Stuart Andrew South) (Lab) The Deepings) (Con) (Leicester West) (Lab) Chris Elmore Sir (North East Stuart Andrew Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) Chris Elmore Hertfordshire) (Con) (Lab) James Heappey (Wells) (Con) Stuart Andrew Sir (East Yorkshire) (Con) Stuart Andrew Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) Stuart Andrew Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) Stuart Andrew Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Stuart Andrew Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) Stuart Andrew Sheppey) (Con) (Hove) (Lab) Chris Elmore Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co- Chris Elmore Mr (Tottenham) (Lab) Chris Elmore op) John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh Stuart Andrew Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Patrick Grady and Selkirk) (Con) Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) Mrs (Mid Derbyshire) Mr William Wragg Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) Chris Elmore (Con) (East Hampshire) (Con) Stuart Andrew Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) Bell Ribeiro-Addy (North Dorset) (Con) Stuart Andrew Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) Patrick Grady Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) Wendy Chamberlain Andrea Leadsom (South Stuart Andrew Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) Chris Elmore Northamptonshire) (Con) 155 Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote16 NOVEMBER 2020 Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote 156

Member eligible for proxy vote Nominated proxy Member eligible for proxy vote Nominated proxy

Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) Stuart Andrew (Hertford and Stortford) Stuart Andrew (Con) (Con) Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) Stuart Andrew Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) Chris Elmore (Northampton South) Stuart Andrew Mrs (Maidenhead) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Con) Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) Bell Ribeiro-Addy Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) Stuart Andrew (Fylde) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Con) Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) Stuart Andrew Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) Stuart Andrew (Con) (Ind) (Bexhill and Battle) Stuart Andrew Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) Chris Elmore (Con) Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater Stuart Andrew Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and Stuart Andrew and West Somerset) (Con) East Thurrock) (Con) Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) Chris Elmore Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) Chris Elmore (West Dorset) (Con) Robbie Moore (Lab) Mark Logan (Bolton North East) Stuart Andrew Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) Stuart Andrew (Con) (Con) Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Bell Ribeiro-Addy Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) Stuart Andrew Eccles) (Lab) () (Lab) Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) Stuart Andrew Mr (Sutton Coldfield) Stuart Andrew Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Stuart Andrew (Con) Upminster) (Con) Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North Patrick Grady (Filton and Bradley Stuart Andrew West) Stoke) (Con) Layla Moran (Oxford West and Wendy Chamberlain Mr (Woking) (Con) Stuart Andrew Abingdon) (LD) Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) Bell Ribeiro-Addy Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) Mark Spencer (Green) (Con) Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) Patrick Grady Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) Chris Elmore Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) Chris Elmore (Lab) Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Newton Abbot) Stuart Andrew (Con) Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) Chris Elmore (Lab) David Morris (Morecambe and Stuart Andrew Lunesdale) (Con) Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow Patrick Grady South) (SNP) Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) Chris Elmore Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Patrick Grady (Beaconsfield) (Con) Stuart Andrew Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) Stuart Andrew John McDonnell (Hayes and Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Con) Harlington) (Lab) Dr (Crewe and Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton Chris Elmore Nantwich) (Con) South East) (Lab) Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) Stuart Andrew Conor McGinn (St Helens North) Chris Elmore (Con) (Lab) David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Stuart Andrew Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) Chris Elmore Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) (South Thanet) (Con) Stuart Andrew Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) Chris Elmore Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Chris Elmore James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co- Chris Elmore Tyne North) (Lab) op) (Truro and Stuart Andrew Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Stuart Andrew Falmouth (Con) Cornwall) (Con) Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North Patrick Grady (Wigan) (Lab) Chris Elmore East) (SNP) Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Stuart Andrew Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) Stuart Andrew Chislehurst) (Con) Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Chris Elmore Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Patrick Grady Royton) (Lab) Renfrewshire North) (SNP) Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) Chris Elmore (Great Grimsby) (Con) Stuart Andrew John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) Patrick Grady John Nicolson (Ochil and South Patrick Grady Perthshire) (SNP) Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na Patrick Grady h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Stuart Andrew Southampton North) (Con) Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) Stuart Andrew Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Stuart Andrew Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Chris Elmore ) (Con) Barr) (Lab) (Birmingham, Chris Elmore Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) Stuart Andrew Ladywood) (Lab) Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) Patrick Grady (Havant) (Con) Stuart Andrew (SNP) Kit Malthouse (North West Stuart Andrew Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) Rebecca Harris Hampshire) (Con) Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) Stuart Andrew 157 Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote16 NOVEMBER 2020 Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote 158

Member eligible for proxy vote Nominated proxy Member eligible for proxy vote Nominated proxy

Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Chris Elmore Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) Stuart Andrew Thamesmead) (Lab) Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) Stuart Andrew Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) Rachel Hopkins Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) Chris Elmore Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Lab) Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) Patrick Grady Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) Chris Elmore (SNP) (Lab/Co-op) Taiwo Owatemi ( North West) Chris Elmore (Elmet and Rothwell Stuart Andrew (Lab) (Con) Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) Chris Elmore Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) Patrick Grady Mr (North ) Stuart Andrew (SNP) (Con) Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) Chris Elmore Sir () Stuart Andrew (Lab) (Con) (Kingswood) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Weston-super-Mare) Stuart Andrew Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) Chris Elmore (Con) Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) Patrick Grady (Brigg and Goole) (Con) Stuart Andrew Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Birmingham, Yardley) Chris Elmore Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Lab) Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) Chris Elmore Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Southampton, Itchen) Stuart Andrew Dr (Central Suffolk and Stuart Andrew (Con) North Ipswich) (Con) Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) Chris Elmore Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) Stuart Andrew Amanda Solloway (Derby North) Stuart Andrew Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) Chris Elmore (Con) (Lab/Co-op) (Rother Valley) Stuart Andrew Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Con) Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) Stuart Andrew Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) Patrick Grady Tom Pursglove () (Con) Stuart Andrew (SNP) Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) Stuart Andrew Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) Stuart Andrew Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Cardiff Central) (Lab) Chris Elmore (Bolton South East) Chris Elmore Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North Stuart Andrew (Lab) East) (Con) Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) Stuart Andrew Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Con) Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) Stuart Andrew (Ashton-under-Lyne) Chris Elmore (Con) (Lab) Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Wendy Chamberlain Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co- Chris Elmore Easter Ross) (LD) op) Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) Stuart Andrew Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) Chris Elmore (Con) Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Chris Elmore (Ilford North) (Lab) Chris Elmore Penge) (Lab) (Central Devon) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Leeds West) (Lab) Chris Elmore Graham Stuart (Beverley and Stuart Andrew (West Bromwich East) Stuart Andrew Holderness (Con) (Con) (York Outer) (Con) Stuart Andrew Ms (St Helens South Chris Elmore (Coventry South) (Lab) Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Whiston) (Lab) Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) Chris Elmore Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) Stuart Andrew Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) Patrick Grady Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) Stuart Andrew (SNP) (Con) Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) Stuart Andrew Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) Stuart Andrew Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/ Chris Elmore Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) Chris Elmore Co-op) Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) Rebecca Harris (Islington South and Chris Elmore Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) Stuart Andrew Finsbury) (Lab) () (Con) Stuart Andrew (Eddisbury) (Con) Stuart Andrew Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Chris Elmore Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) Stuart Andrew Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) (Con) (Birmingham, Stuart Andrew Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) Stuart Andrew Northfield) (Lab) (Con) (North Devon) (Con) Stuart Andrew (North Warwickshire) Stuart Andrew Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Con) (Isle of Wight) (Con) Stuart Andrew Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) Bell Ribeiro-Addy Andrew Selous (South West Rebecca Harris (Sevenoaks) (Con) Stuart Andrew Bedfordshire) (Con) Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) Stuart Andrew Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) Chris Elmore (Con) 159 Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote16 NOVEMBER 2020 Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote 160

Member eligible for proxy vote Nominated proxy Member eligible for proxy vote Nominated proxy

Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) Chris Elmore Mrs (South Stuart Andrew (Lab) Derbyshire) (Con) Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Stuart Andrew Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Patrick Grady Cambridgeshire) (Con) Ayrshire) (SNP) (Cleethorpes) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Calder Valley) (Con) Stuart Andrew Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) Tom Hunt John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) Stuart Andrew Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) Chris Elmore Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) Stuart Andrew (Lab) Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston Stuart Andrew Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) Stuart Andrew North) (Con) Dr () (Con) Stuart Andrew Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) Ben Lake (Somerton and Stuart Andrew Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) Stuart Andrew Frome) (Con) (Con) Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) Stuart Andrew Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) Wendy Chamberlain (Con) (Cynon Valley) (Lab) Rachel Hopkins (Stourbridge) (Con) Stuart Andrew Pete Wishart (Perth and North Patrick Grady Perthshire) (SNP) Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) Bell Ribeiro-Addy Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) Chris Elmore Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Chris Elmore (Redcar) (Con) Stuart Andrew Green) (Lab) Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) Stuart Andrew Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Stuart Andrew (Con) Kent) (Con) 1WH 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Trade Deals and the NHS 2WH

In their response to the petition, the Government Westminster Hall went on to reiterate their overall objectives, which were stated in their UK-US freed trade agreement document. Monday 16 November 2020 They said that, along with the NHS, the price the NHS pays for drugs and the services the NHS provides would not be on the table when negotiating trade deals. Their [GRAHAM STRINGER in the Chair] response also said that no changes would be made to the UK’s Trade Deals and the NHS “intellectual property regime that would lead to increased medicines prices for the NHS.” 4.30 pm However, the timing of the launch of this petition is significant because, as the Government response also Graham Stringer (in the Chair): I remind hon. Members pointed out, the negotiating objectives for a free trade that there have been some changes to normal practice in agreement between the UK and the US were published order to support the new call list system and ensure that on 2 March, more than two months before the petition’s social distancing can be respected. Members should launch. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that, as sanitise their microphones before they use them, using the petition was launched after the publication of the the cleaning materials provided, which they can then UK-US trade deal negotiation objectives, either the dispose of as they leave the room. Members are also petitioners thought that the Government had not been asked to respect the one-way system around the room. clear in their response, or they were not convinced that Members should speak only from the horseshoe—the the price the NHS pays for drugs or the services it debate is not oversubscribed, so there will be no one provides would not be on the table when negotiating sitting at the back who can speak. Members are not trade deals. expected to remain for the wind-ups. In the latter stages, Indeed, who can question the petitioners’ doubts, when Members on the call list seated in the Public Gallery we have seen the UK Government’s repeated refusal to need to move on to the horseshoe. I remind hon. guarantee excluding the NHS and other public services Members that there is less of an expectation that Members from future trade deals? For example, most recently, on stay for the next two speeches once they have spoken. 28 August, the hon. Member for Warrington North This is to help manage attendance in the room. Members () tabled a written parliamentary question may wish to stay beyond their speech, but they should to the Secretary of State for International Trade, asked be aware that doing so may prevent Members in the if she will make it her policy to exclude the NHS from seats in the Public Gallery from moving forward to the potential future trade deals. Unfortunately, although seats on the horseshoe. the question was direct, the answer the hon. Member received did not give a direct commitment. 4.31 pm Furthermore, the UK Government’s response said Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP): I that their negotiating positions had been made clear to beg to move, all their trade partners, including by the Secretary of That this House has considered e-petition 307339, relating to State in her written ministerial statement to Parliament trade deals and the NHS. on 18 May. Although the Secretary of State’s statement It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, on the future trading relationship with the US mentioned Mr Stringer. This e-petition raises negotiations many times, not once did it confirm that “concerns that a trade deal between the UK Government and the the NHS was not a part of them. I therefore struggle to US deal might not exempt our NHS, leaving it vulnerable to see what reassurance that statement gave. privatisation and in direct contradiction to promises this would The Secretary of State’s next statement on the matter, not happen.” on 30 June, entitled “Negotiations on the UK’s Future It was launched on 11 May and closed on Remembrance Trading Relationship with the US: Update”, stated: Day last week, attracting just under 112,000 signatures. “the Government remains clear on protecting the NHS”. The UK Government responded on 23 June, stating: “The government has been clear that protecting the UK’s right Those eight words would have been welcomed across to regulate in the public interest and protecting public services, the House, of course, and we all wanted to take consolation including the NHS, is of the upmost importance.” from them. Yet our hopes were again dashed less than a The petition also highlights that if a deal quietly went month later when Conservative MPs voted overwhelmingly through during the coronavirus crisis, it would be unethical, against an amendment to the Trade Bill that would have lack transparency and, if US finances were involved in enshrined in law the protection of our NHS and other our medical system, potentially create a direct health vital public services that this petition is calling for. That risk to us. This latter point relates to the fact that US is a significant inconsistency and contradicts previous Government statements have suggested that they intend promises, which is a tenet of the petition. I hope that to negotiate for US pharmaceutical companies to charge the Minister can throw some light on why only two higher prices for medicines sold to the NHS as part of Conservative MPs saw the perceived duplicity in saying any UK-US free trade agreement. The cost of drugs to one thing and then acting against it, not least because the NHS is already growing much faster than inflation, neither of the Secretary of State’s subsequent statements driving deficits across the service. Allowing big business have repeated that assurance. and pharmaceutical companies to behave as they see fit The people who have signed the petition just want that would drive costs for new drugs well beyond the NHS’s assurance. They want a cast-iron guarantee—not words ability to afford them, threatening our health, safety that can easily be rescinded—that the vital services provided and national security. by our NHS will be protected. Those vital services have 3WH Trade Deals and the NHS16 NOVEMBER 2020 Trade Deals and the NHS 4WH

[Martyn Day] that will ensure it is taken off the table. I am certain that I am not alone in finding it hard to understand why an come to the fore in an unprecedented way throughout amendment that would have ensured market access to this terrible covid-19 pandemic. Quite simply,the petitioners healthcare services was restricted was roundly rejected do not want our NHS to be weakened and undermined by all but two Conservative MPs. Having discussed how by private companies being able to trade unhindered on trade deals could negatively impact on health services, the back of it, which, I think—I am sure others here what possible reason did the Government have for not agree—is a perfectly reasonable position, given what seizing the opportunity to commit legally to ensuring has already occurred with the Trade Bill. that trade agreements could not be concluded if they It is important to note at an early stage in this debate risked altering the way our NHS services are provided? that, because the Trade Bill was able to pass without the That brings me to investor-state dispute settlements, amendment that would have protected the NHS and which are a threat to public services, particularly when publicly funded health and care services in other parts they are permitted speculatively or retrospectively.That was of the UK from any form of control from outside the a red line when the EU negotiated TTIP—the transatlantic UK, one independent MP joined 336 Conservative MPs trade and investment partnership—with the US. The to reject protecting the provision of a comprehensive, EU would never accept a trade deal with the US in publicly funded health service, free at the point of delivery, which such principles were compromised, because the from being undermined or restricted by any international trade agreements that include investor-state dispute trade agreement. It is also worth noting that the rejected settlement clauses have the potential to undermine the amendment would have, among other things, recognised procurement process and regulations within public that an appropriate authority had the right to enact policies, procurement, especially within the NHS, if not restrained legislation and regulation that protect and promote properly and fairly. health, public health, social care and public safety in Indeed, the creator of the petition, Joanne Barlow, health or care services. Furthermore, it would have saw investor-state dispute settlements as one of the excluded provision for any investor-state dispute settlement, major problems of a trade deal with the US, pointing a clause that provides or is related to the delivery of out that they could include legal challenges by any US public services, healthcare, care or public health. I will markets deprived of access to the market or if their discuss the relevance of ISDS clauses shortly. profits were threatened. Joanne explained that that would I want to highlight another amendment proposed to make it difficult to return the NHS to a fully publicly the Trade Bill that would have required the UK Government owned and run institution. In addition, Ms Barlow to secure the approval of both Houses of Parliament noted that she could not find evidence of a specific and the devolved Parliaments of Scotland and Wales and clause exempting the NHS from American investment. the Northern Ireland Assembly before a trade agreement It would therefore be of some comfort to the petitioners could be approved. Notably, 323 Conservative MPs voted if the Minister could today confirm that there will be no down the proposal. The reality of those two amendments investor-state dispute settlement clauses in any trade being rejected, which has been reported by the BBC’s deal signed by the UK. Reality Check, is that Parliament does not have a statutory role in either scrutinising or voting on any future trade To summarise, if this Government’s insistence that deals because the Government have the power to pass the NHS is not on the table in a trade deal with the US some aspects of trade deals without there even needing is indeed the case, why did they not accept the amendments to be a vote in Parliament. that were put forward and commit their pledges in law? The petitioners want that insistence to be in legislation, Apart from the worrying lack of scrutiny that situation to ensure that our NHS is not left vulnerable to privatisation presents in protecting our NHS and other public services, or becomes a victim of broken promises that it will not I believe it to be fundamentally undemocratic. Indeed, be sold off to the highest bidder. No one needs reminding the bottom line is that, despite the UK Government’s that we are still in the depths of the covid-19 pandemic, response to the petition stating that they which has caused physical, mental and financial hardship “will continue to ensure that decisions on how to run public services” to people across the UK. Given the lack of scrutiny and will include “Devolved Administrations”, the devolved democracy that the Trade Bill has delivered, I urge the Administrations—like Parliament—will not playa statutory UK Government to respect the request of the petitioners role in the UK Government’s international trade policy. in their negotiations with the US and not to progress a That is undemocratic and highlights the wider implication trade deal that will risk our NHS in any way. that a trade deal could undermine the constitutional powers that devolution delivered. Graham Stringer (in the Chair): Within the Chamber It is plain for everyone to see that the NHS is a prime now are five Members on the call list, with two Members example of that, because health is a devolved matter. not in the Chamber, so it is difficult for me to calculate a Therefore, given that the UK Government are in a time limit. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople position to influence devolved powers without a statutory from 5.30 pm, so we have about 45 minutes for Back-Bench requirement to seek consent from, or even to consult, speeches. If Members keep an eye on the clock and the devolved Administrations, will the Minister today make short speeches, I will not have to impose a time also explain the Government’s position that it is limit. constitutionally inappropriate for devolved Administrations to have a statutory role in a reserved area, while it is 4.45 pm not deemed constitutionally inappropriate for the UK Government to legislate in areas of devolved competence? (Birkenhead) (Lab): It is a pleasure to If the UK Government want us to believe that they serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank will keep their promises that the NHS is not on the table the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk in trade negotiations, they should commit to legislation (Martyn Day) for his hard work in securing the debate. 5WH Trade Deals and the NHS16 NOVEMBER 2020 Trade Deals and the NHS 6WH

I am sure that I am not the only Member to have been petition in droves, because they have been contacting inundated with messages from constituents in recent me with their concerns about the NHS and for months, urging me to do whatever I can to protect the many years. NHS in any future trade deal with the United States. Wenow have some concerning facts to go on. Following Those messages were full of gratitude and admiration the Brexit vote, the Government had three fundamental for the nurses, doctors and support workers who have jobs on trade. First, they had to get a deal to secure the worked tirelessly through the pandemic to save lives and half of our trade that depends on Europe. Secondly, stop the spread of this terrible disease. I am sure that all they had to negotiate roll-over deals with the 40 countries hon. Members would echo those sentiments. However, and trade blocs with which we currently trade freely they were also full of fear about the fact that, in just a thanks to our membership of the EU. Thirdly, they had few short months, our health services could be laid to negotiate entirely new trade deals with other parts of waste by predatory multinationals and the American the world. healthcare industry.I welcome this opportunity to restate After more than four years, and with just weeks until my opposition to any part of the NHS being treated as the end of the Brexit transition period, the Government a bargaining chip in trade negotiations with the USA. have failed dismally on all three counts. There is no deal I wish I could tell my constituents that their fears are in place with the EU, roll-over deals have still not been without foundation, but in Washington politicians from agreed with the likes of Canada, Turkey, Singapore and across the board are pushing for the NHS to be on the Mexico, and not a single genuinely new trade deal has negotiating table in free trade negotiations.Chuck Grassley, been agreed with any other country in the world. The the influential Chair of the Senate’s Committee on International Trade Secretary recently trumpeted her Finance, said that roll-over trade deal with Japan, but she failed to mention “a trade deal ought to include almost anything”. that 83% of the export growth resulting from the deal He added: will go to Japanese exporters, and only 17% to British “I would hope that the National Health service would be open firms. What will that do to our current trade deficit of to some competitive approach that would benefit our pharmaceutical £3 billion with Japan? companies”. With a potential trade deal with the US now on the The ambition of the American healthcare lobby is back burner because of the election result, the Government’s clear. It wants full market access to our national health trade strategy is in tatters. They said their objective after service and an end to price controls on drugs and Brexit was that 80% of global trade would be covered pharmaceutical products so that it can rinse the NHS of by free trade deals, but as things now stand we will go every penny.It also wants to exploit investor-state dispute into 2021 with little over 10% of our global trade agreed. settlement mechanisms so that it can sue the British Turning to the question of the national health service, Government for making decisions that may be in the many civil society organisations—particularly trade unions best interests of the public but fail to reward corporate and health organisations—have long warned about the private shareholders. inclusion of public services, including health, in trade The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that the NHS agreements. The concerns are four-fold. Negative lists is not up for sale, but when the time came for him to put are clauses requiring that all industries can be included his money where his mouth is, he refused to support in trade agreements, unless there are specific carve-outs. amendments to the Trade Bill that would have enshrined It is not always easy to define which services count as protections for the NHS in law. I am not fearmongering; health services. For instance, digital services may seem I am issuing a clear warning that, without those legal pretty irrelevant to health, but NHS data management protections, the NHS remains at risk of having “for is increasingly digitised, and apps for such things as GP sale” signs slapped on its services. appointments are increasingly prevalent. Negative lists As a member of the International Trade Committee, have a broad scope, covering existing and future services, I have followed the ongoing trade negotiations closely, and therefore make it harder for Governments to regulate and I know that the UK is not negotiating from a and to provide health services, let alone to reassure our position of strength. The Government are playing a worried constituents. dangerous game of chicken with the European Union, There are also stand still clauses. After the trade deal our single largest trading partner. The looming prospect is signed parties are not allowed to reduce the level of of a no-deal Brexit leaves us dangerously dependent on liberalisation beyond what it was at the point of signature. securing a trade deal with the United States. Although I Under ratchet clauses parties are not allowed to reverse welcome the end of the Trump era in Washington, certain measures brought in after the point of signature. President-elect Biden has been clear that he will prioritise Furthermore, failure to abide by those clauses can result a deal with the EU over one with Britain. in legal challenge from the trade partner or, if there is a The fear that I share with my constituents is that, as separate ISDS clause, challenge from private investors. the EU transition period ends, the scramble for trade The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk deals will be stepped up, the pressure to put the NHS on (Martyn Day) covered that very well in his speech, so I the table will grow, and a deal at any price will be rushed shall not repeat what he said. through. We cannot allow that to happen. Our NHS The US Administration have stated publicly that they must remain just that: ours. wish to use a trade deal to challenge the purchasing model. That could be done through specific market 4.48 pm access provisions, or other clauses aimed at the pharmaceutical industry.That has the potential to increase Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab): It greatly the cost of medicines, making some vital treatments is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. unaffordable for the NHS. The benefit of our unitary I am unsurprised that my constituents have signed this model in the NHS is that it is a cover-all. However, 7WH Trade Deals and the NHS16 NOVEMBER 2020 Trade Deals and the NHS 8WH

[Catherine West] discuss her concerns about a number of issues, including messages she had seen online suggesting that if the should there be an infiltration into that unified system, Conservatives won the election we would dismantle and that could be a slam-dunk for a “hostile takeover”, sell off the NHS. We had a great discussion that day, almost. and I managed to reassure her to such an extent that she Another good example, in relation to digital trade, is came to work for me, but I have lost count of the cross-border data flows. Digital trade rules are aimed at number of times I have given assurances to constituents—in limiting the ability of Governments to introduce localisation person, by email, in writing or over the phone—that the measures or stop data leaving the country. There are NHS is not for sale and never will be under a Conservative potential privacy and security implications—for example, Government. if sensitive NHS patient data are held by private firms The Prime Minister, the International Trade Secretary outside the UK. There are further points on technology and the Minister here today have made assurances time transfer and the monetisation of patient data. and again—in full, in public forums, in the media and The other great point about the unified NHS system, more—that the NHS is not for sale, and nor is the price of course, is that we have probably the best block of of our medicine. Nor are our NHS health services open data in the world to understand health. The NHS, being for foreign companies. It is about time that our opponents a unified system, has information about every one of us. quit with the attack lines,took off their red and yellow-tinted If we see NHS data in that way, it provides a wonderful spectacles and started to work with us to help secure the trading tool. However, those of us who are concerned future trade deals that will help make our country more about the way data can be used—that includes every prosperous. Member of the House, I am sure—have to ask the The NHS, we all agree, is one of the most valuable Government a lot of questions. entities in our country. It is often called a jewel in our That brings me to my final point, on the lack of scrutiny crown, but it is even more important than that. It of the principles behind the way the trade operation is embodies the very essence of our society—the spirit working at the moment, and in relation to specific trade that no man will be left behind and that, regardless of deals and the way they will come to the House of health or wealth, people will receive treatment free at Commons. I worry a lot about the fact that we do not the point of use. The people who work for our NHS are bring people, groups or our constituents with us when heroes. We have seen that demonstrated so clearly we do things in the Commons. We know that from the throughout this covid pandemic by the doctors and times we get to the end of a vote, and people ask what nurses working for hours on end in full PPE—some we were voting on—we are explaining backwards. The even isolating from their families to help keep them safe. thing about trade is that we need to bring people with Their sacrifice certainly made me think twice about us.The wonderful, now deceased, Congressman John Lewis, whingeing about wearing a mask when going shopping whom I met when I, like my hon. Friend the Member for groceries. However, we must not forget the porters, for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), was on the International cleaners, receptionists, administrators and all the others Trade Committee, said that he felt the transatlantic who have worked so hard to keep the wheels of our trade and investment partnership failed because it failed great NHS turning in this difficult time. My sincere to bring working people and trade unions with it. I thanks go out to every single one of them. think it failed for other reasons—it was quite complex—but For years now, there has been this weird obsession he made a valuable contribution. The Government are with Tory privatisation of the NHS, so if hon. Members trying to cut corners now, because time is running out will indulge me, I will take a little trip back in time. and because they think that they will be in government First, on 17 April 1997, Tony Blair claimed that there forever, which many of us hope they will not. were just 14 days to save the NHS. Then, on 21 March 2009, However,we have to see this issue less in a party political according to the Morning Star—not a paper I usually way, because it can affect trade for a long period—for cite—there were six weeks to save the NHS. Some say 10 to 15 years—and over a series of different Governments. that the reason the NHS needed saving was the prospect We now have the opportunity to put in place the building of a Tory Government, so let us go a little further blocks of scrutiny so that, in the words of John Lewis, forward. On 4 February 2012, under a Conservative we can bring people with us and ensure that, at the last Government, the right hon. Member for Doncaster hurdle, these things are genuinely in the interests of our North (Edward Miliband) said we had three months to communities and the people we serve. save the NHS. That same month, The Mirror said there were just 12 days to save the NHS. In January 2015, The 4.55 pm Mirror said there were four months to save the NHS, (Bishop Auckland) (Con): It is a and in 2017, there were three days to save the NHS. pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Yet in 2020, after 10 years of Conservative Government, I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green the NHS still stands, and it stands strong, with record (Catherine West) for her reasoned argument, and investment. In our manifesto, we pledged to build 40 new particularly for making the point that trade should not hospitals. Forgive me, but we did not stick to that be party political, because it is far greater than that. commitment, because we are actually delivering 48. The On that note, one of the things I have found most NHS has existed for 72 years, almost 45 years under a frustrating about my time in Parliament so far is when Conservative Government, so it is time to end this nonsense attack lines that are not a true reflection of narrative and to stop the NHS being used as a political the facts are used to whip up fear among our constituents. football, because it is far too important for that. I recall very clearly a conversation I had with Joanne, Having started with some heavy myth-busting, I reassure who is now my constituency office manager, the first the Minister that I intend to talk a little bit about trade. time we met. She asked to meet before the election to I have long said that trade is the answer to the UK’s 9WH Trade Deals and the NHS16 NOVEMBER 2020 Trade Deals and the NHS 10WH future prosperity.In this globalised world, where technology This Government have repeatedly asked the public— has made it not only possible but easy to do business even today, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland with our friends right around the world, global Britain (Dehenna Davison) asked them again—to blindly trust must truly embrace the opportunity we have been granted their promise that the NHS will not be for sale in any to set our future trade policy as we leave the EU. future trade deals with the US, despite mounting evidence As we know, our single biggest trading partner is the to the contrary. They have repeatedly been provided USA, which is also the nation with which we have the with opportunities to put those fears to bed, with biggest positive trade balance. In 2019, we exported amendments tabled to the Government’s post-Brexit £112 billion to the USA and imported £70 billion. By trade deal explicitly stating that the NHS would be reaching a comprehensive free trade deal with the USA, excluded from anyfuture trade agreements.One amendment we will have even more trading opportunities, which was supported by more than 400 doctors and health means more opportunities for businesses in all of our professionals, yet rather than deliver on their promise, constituencies.I think of Equus Leather in my constituency, not a single Conservative MP voted for the amendment, where I took the Trade Secretary last year: the UK which was defeated by 89 votes. exports over 80% of its leather production, and our The Government claim farcically that they voted biggest export market for finished leather is the USA. I against the amendment because it legitimises the concept also think of our farmers—those in Teesdale and Weardale, of NHS privatisation, which in the realms of hypotheticals who work so hard to keep our country fed. The US and metaphysics they claim to oppose, yet when faced trade deal is often sold by our opponents as though it with a concrete opportunity to enshrine in law the safety will be harmful to farming, but on the contrary it of our most treasured public institution, the Government presents a huge opportunity for our farmers. With sat on their hands. Now our NHS will be at the mercy of market access to US beef being granted this year for the US negotiators, who are heavily influenced by the first time in over 20 years, the industry estimates that multibillion-dollar private healthcare interest in carving beef exports to the USA will be worth £66 million to up our health service for corporate gain. That clearly our farmers over the next five years. demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensure More broadly, I think of the benefit of trade for that the NHS is on the table during trade negotiations. County Durham and the north-east. County Durham However, there is an even clearer reason why we exported almost £2 billion-worth of goods last year, so cannot trust them—or the words of the hon. Member the removal of further international trade barriers can for Bishop Auckland—when they say the NHS is not help my county’s exports grow even further. Looking at for sale. That is because they have already been selling it the north-east region as a whole,analysis by the Department off, piece by piece, for the best part of a decade. Since for International Trade has shown that the north-east is the disastrous Health and Social Care Act 2012, NHS one of the regions of the UK that has the potential to outsourcing and privatisation have been incentivised. benefit the most from a UK-US trade deal. If Members Clinical commissioning groups are under pressure to will forgive me, a trade deal can even help us to “level outsource; in 2015, private firms won 40% of all contracts. up” the north-east. In the last five years alone, private companies have been The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk handed £15 billion of NHS contracts. Some 18% of (Martyn Day), who secured this debate, spoke about healthcare bids go to private providers. It is true that the amendments to the Trade Bill. However, he knows as NHS logo remains and in some cases it is even co-opted well as I do that the Trade Bill was not about the US by private providers, as happened with the disastrous trade deal or future trade deals, but about the continuity so-called NHS Test and Trace, which is predominantly of existing trade agreements. The amendment he referred run by Serco. Yet the direction of travel under the to would not have had an impact on any future US Government has been towards a fragmented, underfunded trade deal. Furthermore, I wish that Opposition Members and increasingly privatised healthcare system. would talk about the work the Department is doing to The danger of sliding towards a US-style private allow scrutiny of future trade deals, such as the regular insurance healthcare system cannot be overstated. Research MP engagement events that I have been invited to and by the Commonwealth Fund in 2018 found that nearly have attended—I hope many other Members will take half of working-age Americans—a staggering 87 million up the opportunity to do so as well. Also, any future people—were underinsured or had no coverage at all. trade deals will need parliamentary approval. I for one Rather than spending money on doctors, nurses, mental certainly would not approve a trade deal that included health professionals, dentists and other professionals our NHS, and it is safe to say that my Conservative who provide services to people and improve their lives, colleagues would not do so either. the US wastes hundreds of billions of dollars a year on I hope that what I have said today acts as some profiteering, huge executive compensation packages and reassurance to those who signed the petition. However, outrageous administrative costs. Despite widespread to reiterate the point one final time—I cannot say this myths regarding the efficiency of the free market, the enough—the NHS is not, and will not be, for sale under US spends nearly double what we spend on healthcare a Conservative Government. for generally worse healthcare results. That is the system that recently appointed advisers to the Secretary of State for International Trade believe is superior to our own. 5.2 pm It is common sense that profiteering and corporate Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind): It is a pleasure greed should be off limits in services essential to human to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I begin life. That reflects public polling that shows that 84% of by congratulating the hon. Member for Linlithgow Britons believe that the NHS should be in public ownership. and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on having secured this The NHS is a gleaming beacon of human achievement—an important debate. embodiment of socialist universal principles—from which 11WH Trade Deals and the NHS16 NOVEMBER 2020 Trade Deals and the NHS 12WH

[Claudia Webbe] US healthcare would then have the power to drive up the price charged for those services in future contract everyone, no matter what their position in society, benefits rounds. It is not accurate for the Government to state equally.It is therefore up to all of us who value healthcare that the NHS is not for sale when we have already seen as a human right to protect our most treasured public them privatise our covid-19 response, handing out huge institution. It is incumbent on the Government to make contracts to companies such as Deloitte, Serco and their rhetoric a reality and legislate to ensure that our KPMG, which have put profits and cost-cutting before NHS is truly off the table and is never put up for sale. care and wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. 5.7 pm The UK-US trade situation is likely to change as the incoming US Administration takes office in January. Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab): It is a pleasure However, we must also monitor discussions regarding to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I fully the UK joining the Comprehensive and Progressive support the e-petition relating to trade deals and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which demands a very open NHS, which has been signed by more than 110,000 people, approach to competition in services, potentially including including a number of my constituents. I, too, pay healthcare. I hope the Minister will address that point tribute to and thank our superb NHS staff for their and say specifically whether membership of the CPTPP public service. I also thank Unite, Unison, We Own It, will oblige the UK to accept a “list it or lose it” Keep Our NHS Public, Global Justice Now and other approach to private competition in the public sector. If organisations for their campaigning to protect our NHS. so, will the Government guarantee to negotiate a carve-out Our NHS was founded on a set of collectivist principles for the UK from those provisions when it comes to our that bind our communities together. Those principles NHS and other essential public services? represent a commitment to a comprehensive free healthcare I agree with campaigners that we must oppose the service that delivers excellent and professional care to gradual marketisation and outsourcing of NHS care at all who need it in the UK. They are also an obligation all costs. Our ethical and communitarian-focused NHS to provide the best value for taxpayers’ money and is not compatible with private greed. The Labour party’s ensure that services remain accountable to the public. stance on this issue is simple and clear: the best way to That seems to be at odds with the Government’s remove the threat to the NHS, from whatever direction current trade strategy, however, which does not omit the it comes, now or in the future, is to legislate in the Trade NHS from future trade deals, but exposes it to competition Bill that the NHS should be outside the scope of any and the market. That runs the risk of damaging standards future trade agreements. However, it speaks volumes of care and diluting the transparency of decision making. that the Government refuse to do that. The NHS is The threat posed to our healthcare system is clear for all more than a logo. of us to see. US officials have repeatedly stated that they regard the NHS as being on the table and that they 5.12 pm specifically want to ensure that big US healthcare and Dean Russell (Watford) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve drug companies can compete fairly to provide medical under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. services, sell drugs and access NHS patient data. First, I say thank you to those who organised the We should not just be looking across the pond. The petition and to those who signed it. It is great to be able Secretary of State for International Trade has close to stand here to clarify matters and reassure those relationships with right-wing think-tanks that want the people regarding the concerns they may have had about NHS to be opened up to private competition, notably the privatisation of the NHS or any act towards that . In 2018, Hannan and his Initiative for under the trade deal. The reality is that the Trade Bill Free Trade joined forces with the US Cato Institute and has nothing to do with that; it is an extension of the 10 other UK and US right-wing think-tanks to promote existing agreement, which does not cover US activities. their ideal US-UK free trade agreement, which called More importantly, this Government have not engaged for the opening up of all services in both countries to in any activities to privatise the NHS. competition. Its co-editor, Daniel Ikenson, said of the report: In fact, the fearmongering that happens around this “Healthcare is a service, we call for opening services to competition. issue, as I wrote in an article earlier this year, actually And I know some people are worried about what happens to the causes many people anxiety. It causes fear and concern NHS…We think competition is a good thing and it would lead to among the very people who need to be reassured that better quality healthcare.” they can always access their NHS services at the point When the Minister responds to the debate, will he of need and for free. The reality is that nuanced debate explain why the other co-editor of that report, Daniel is stifled, ironically, by the Opposition. Hannan, is now a lead adviser on his Department’s I do not wish to score points on this issue, because I Board of Trade? Is it any wonder that we do not feel really do not like political point-scoring, but it was the inclined to trust the Secretary of State when she says Opposition that brought in the private finance initiative. publicly that the NHS is not for sale but then surrounds The Labour Government brought in the privatised herself in private with advisers from the Institute of Hinchingbrooke Hospital, and they introduced prescription Economic Affairs, the Cato Institute and other right-wing charges for spectacles and dentistry. This Government think-tanks who argue the exact opposite? have undone much of that work. We bought back We must remember that even if the US healthcare Hinchingbrooke. Wehave invested millions, if not billions, industry is prevented from directly competing with the in the NHS over the past year. NHS for Government-funded services, the Government’s As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, trade agreement may open up access to NHS procurement I have seen at first hand the good, but also the challenges contracts for buying medicines, delivering medical the NHS faces. When we look at those challenges, one treatments and providing patient accommodation. of the biggest problems I have seen over the past few 13WH Trade Deals and the NHS16 NOVEMBER 2020 Trade Deals and the NHS 14WH decades, and particularly over the past few years, is that As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, the rhetoric and fearmongering around privatisation of I hear the good and the concerning from the NHS and the NHS have built and built. Yes, it helps people to put social care. I am not saying that it is an amazing leaflets through doors; yes, it helps them to make political organisation—I am not even saying the Government points; and, yes, it helps to create coverage and news are perfect in every possible way— but there is scrutiny headlines. However, what it also does is make the people there. There are opportunities to delve into it and to at the very heart of the NHS, who need support, worry have a much-needed calm and nuanced debate about about their futures. what it will look like in future. What does the NHS need in the next five, 10, 20, 30 years? We must not constantly Rachel Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman’s point about look at the next election cycle. We need to take the fearmongering is interesting. Has he, like me, had many rhetoric out so that we can have calm, consistent and NHS employees contact him with their concerns about thoughtful debate about what it will look like. I am privatisation of the NHS? They are fearful not for their pleased to see colleagues here from the Committee. I am jobs, but for the future of the NHS. sure they will agree that we work closely and very well together on the Committee to be able to have debate Dean Russell: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. and discussion around this. When we cannot do that in Yes, they have, and where have they got that from? the public realm, it stifles our ability to continually From leaflets and newspapers. In fact, I was about to improve the NHS. make the point that in my volunteering at Watford The Trade Bill is about existing trade. I will not go General Hospital, I have spoken to staff who are anxious into the details because I am sure the Minister will go about what the future looks like. I was anxious to speak into it in much more detail, but let us move forward. I to them because I want to understand what their fears urge those watching and listening to this debate and are. Often the fears are based on rhetoric, not on fact, who signed the petition to please look at the facts and what there might be in the future, which is based on and be reassured by what the Government have done past Governments, not the current Government. and what we say about the NHS not being on the table. The anxiety goes deeper. Recently, while volunteering I urge colleagues to come together and have a calm at the hospital, I held an iPad for a gentleman who had debate about what this will look like in the future, had a stroke. It was quite a moving moment. I explained because if we do not, the people who need the most to him that he had time to speak to his daughter and, as support, who are the most anxious and fearful, will be I sat there on my knees holding the iPad for him, he harmed the most simply by words. reached his hand over to hold my wrist and said, “Just a few minutes longer,” because he wanted to speak to his 5.20 pm daughter for a little longer. In that moment, I realised the fear and vulnerability of the patients who are in the Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I congratulate the hospital beds, and how they, the staff and the families hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn worry about what support they will get. In that moment, Day). I have not seen him in the House in ages, so it is I realised also that the issue is not only about medicine, good to see him back. I thank all hon. Members who pharmaceuticals and trade deals, but about real people have contributed. I am my party’s health spokesperson, who are suffering and need support. What they also so this issue is close to my heart as part of my portfolio, need is the continued reassurance that we are not privatising but it is more than that. As the hon. Gentleman said, the NHS, even though the Government have never—not our NHS stands for more than just an organisation; it once—opted to do so, and neither will they. stands for the care that it gives. I want to refer to that in We heard an excellent contribution earlier about data, the few moments remaining. which is something I am passionate about. Digital and There are valid concerns about our trade deals. I data are the future of the NHS. We want the ability to understand that. That is why we are having this debate. cure cancer and diseases by looking at data in a much The vote for Brexit presented this place with a once-in- fairer way,and by making sure that people feel comfortable a-lifetime opportunity to make trade deals, to enhance sharing their data online and with the NHS and the wealth of the country. I believe that can happen. organisations to help them solve the biggest issues in Others may have a different opinion, but we will wait and the world. Why would they not do that? Because of the see to make our own decisions. As it says in scripture, to fear around where the data would go. Yet every single whom much is given, much is expected, and there are day, people share where they are, what they eat and who high standards for all of us in this place and further their friends are with Facebook, Google and all the big afield. corporateorganisationswithoutasecondthought.However, What unites us in this debate is our love of the NHS. because of the rhetoric—I will not blame it fully, to be We have been united together to protect it: the unions, fair—they are fearful of giving data and important patients, the Government, elected representatives and information to the Government and the NHS to help our constituents. Collectively, we have all made it clear them solve the big issues. what we need to do and why we are here to debate this We have seen with the test and trace app that when the matter. The road to attainment is difficult enough without safety and security are created and people are reassured, setbacks, but my constituents have made it abundantly they use it. Being able to use the app saves countless clear that our NHS is a treasure not to be touched, lives, and people can look to see whether other people other than to enhance and improve in-house. need support or need to be isolated. That is about people In the past few weeks, I have come to know at first feeling secure and safe, but the constant rhetoric—this hand what the NHS can do. I have realised how important drumbeat—just to get leaflets through doors to make the NHS is to my family. Many of us have family the constant argument about privatisation is fearmongering members who are alive today thanks to the contribution at its worst. In fact, it scares the most vulnerable. of the NHS and its staff. I think of my father, who died 15WH Trade Deals and the NHS16 NOVEMBER 2020 Trade Deals and the NHS 16WH

[Jim Shannon] East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for securing this important debate. The genesis of and support for this petition six years ago. When he was living, he had three operations reflect our values and the esteem in which each nation’s for cancer. I have no doubt that the skill of the surgeon’s NHS is held. The petition is also a reflection of the knife, the love of the nurses and the prayer from God’s public’s mistrust of whether the Prime Minister and his people saved him on three occasions. The NHS is an Government will honour their word, and their concern important part of all of our lives. about the risk to the NHS from corporate avarice I am sure I am not the only MP to be inundated with should it be on the table in any US trade deal. emails regarding the trade deal and the NHS. I also Before the cronyism, incompetence and allegations of received a few personal messages reminding me of how corruption began to dog the Government, the petitioners truly exceptional our NHS is. I want to quote one letter. recognised that the deals the Government had conducted I get lots of letters regularly. It is good to get letters during the coronavirus crisis could be unethical and from people. People usually contact me to say how bad lacked transparency. Although we are set to see an end things are and to give off. That is in the nature of our to Trumpian politics, in the USA at least, the concern job, but people also contact me to say, “Thank you for still stands that involving the US financially in our what you are doing.” health system could pose a serious health risk to us and One lady wrote to me: our NHS. “I seem to be writing to you a lot recently but our NHS is very Save our outstanding landscapes and convivial culture, important to me personally when I was diagnosed with Acute Lymphocytic Leukaemia Stage 4. What seemed to compound the there is little more precious to the people in Scotland problem was that when I had to have chemo treatment I had to be than their NHS. The NHS in Scotland is unencumbered admitted due to the problems I have with my back problems. The by a false internal market and there is minimal involvement care I received was excellent and would not have a bad word said of the private sector. The public service ethos is rewarded against any Doctors or Nurses that give me care during my long by a satisfaction level of 78%—an impressive 36% higher time stay in hospital. Jim I’m depending on you and all of your than for the NHS across the UK. colleagues to make sure that the NHS is protected in LAW and safe from any trade deals. This government says one thing”— Perhaps I am worrying unnecessarily, and perhaps I want to be clear that I am not being critical here— the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) is right. “and promised they’ll protect the NHS but we need to see it Ministers have given repeated assurances on the record in law.” that there will be no requirement to increase private This debate is really important because there is a chance provision and no ramping up of drug costs, and that to see that in law. My constituents want to know that health data is safe, but if the Government are so confident the NHS is protected in law in the Trade Bill. and are assuring us not to worry, why are they hesitant to put an explicit protection in primary legislation? The message is clear: we have something that is worth protecting. I am not in any way dismissing the American Sadly, in Scotland we have a track record on which to medical staff. My parliamentary aide’s daughter was judge this Government, and an ever sadder track record taken into hospital with pneumonia while she was on on which to judge promises and vows from any Westminster holiday in Florida. The hon. Member for Leicester East Government, whatever their stripe. To digress slightly, (Claudia Webbe) referred to some of what happens in this weekend I watched the first ever episode of “Taggart” America. —from before it was called “Taggart”, in fact. It was set I will quote again, to give the comparison between in Glasgow in 1983, at the height of the North sea oil our NHS and what it means in America. She said that boom, yet the deprivation on show was truly shameful. the care she had received in that American hospital was It was no fluke of filming location. Like many, I walked second to none, but one memory stuck with her when through those desolate scenes of economic devastation. she was waiting for the consultant to come and see her The loadsamoney Thatcherism was less about the pooling child after the X-ray was brought to the room. She heard and sharing of resources, or about any dubious acclaim the patient next door being repeatedly told that unless for her ideology, and more about the pulling of that oil she remembered her insurance details, she could not be wealth from Scotland. Greed is never attractive. Of treated. Boy, aren’t we really lucky to have an NHS that course, the true value of that wealth was deliberately looks after and saves our people, rather than one that concealed from the Scottish people, as evidenced by the we pay into? That stuck with her and made her thankful McCrone report. As the wealth was removed, so too for the NHS, because no matter where someone is from, were jobs and hope. what their job is and what their prognosis is, treatment I also had my usual dose of Marr on Sunday morning, will never be withheld. That is what our NHS means. and up popped my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath We need to treasure the expertise of the staff and think predecessor thrice back. It was a really odd experience, about the way in which we treat them. These are all things because I thought they were showing a clip from 2014, that need to be protected. I hope that all MPs in this but actually it was new footage and it was, almost Chamber, universally and across all political parties, verbatim, the same story and script endorsed by all the will collectively say that this trade deal will never impact Westminster parties in 2014 to disingenuously secure a on the NHS. The Minister has said that, and so have the pyrrhic victory that served only to drive— Government, but I want him to say it in this Chamber today. Graham Stringer (in the Chair): Order. The hon. 5.25 pm Gentleman is straying quite a distance from trade and the NHS. Can he refocus on that? Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and Neale Hanvey: It is the next line, Mr Stringer. 17WH Trade Deals and the NHS16 NOVEMBER 2020 Trade Deals and the NHS 18WH

Graham Stringer (in the Chair): I am grateful to the only doing what they must do, and that means looking hon. Gentleman. further afield. It means looking with great interest at the national health service. We know that they do that, Neale Hanvey: As I was saying, that only served to did it and will continue to do it—for the next few days drive a surge of support for the SNP and Scottish anyway, with the support of the Trump Administration. independence. Yes, it is welcome news that we have President-elect Before I am accused of straying too far, what relevance Biden, hopefully,to take over—court cases notwithstanding has that to trade deals and the NHS? Well, one simple —on 20 January, but this petition was signed when but absolutely essential word, when the word of another President Trump was in office and the petitioners had is what our future depends on, is “trust”. Why should no way of knowing whether that would change. my constituents trust this Government? I say that not The petitioners are concerned about the US objectives just because of historical wrongs, but because of their published in March. They are concerned about the conduct in the here and now. market access being requested by US negotiators for My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East pharmaceuticals. They are concerned about what that Falkirk set out serious questions and concerns, which market access means in practice. deserve full and transparent answers. When the crony virus stalks the halls of power, when Ministers puff out Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): Will the hon. their chest and defend their intention to break international Gentleman give way? law, when the Prime Minister refuses to answer questions in the Chamber but casually insults, when the promises Bill Esterson: I will not give way to somebody who of devo-max have led Scotland to a devo-destroying has not been here for the whole debate. United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, when the child poverty that this Government have created is dismissed Graham Stringer (in the Chair): Order. May I explain and hunger ignored, and when a pay rise for carers and something that might be useful for future debates? If nurses is unaffordable but an MP’s pay rise will do quite hon. Members are not on the call list, they may not nicely, thank you, why should the people who dedicate intervene in Westminster Hall debates under the present their lives to the NHS take this Government’s word for rules. I call Bill Esterson. anything? Those people’s belief in altruism and shared endeavour is in peril. They understand the implications Bill Esterson: Thank you, Mr Stringer. The petitioners of negative lists, standstill clauses, ratchet clauses and the are concerned about the market access to the national ultimate con, the investor-state dispute settlement process, health service that is outlined in the trade agreement all of which have the potential to eviscerate the NHS. objectives of the United States. A long-stated objective of American pharmaceutical companies is to take away The petitioners want to protect the NHS through the NHS’s influence on drug pricing, not just in this primary legislation because, as we all know, to neoliberals, country, but across the European continent. That is a health is never the priority; profit is. There is no place in very real concern. the Scottish NHS for profiteering. This Government must commit to legislating and protecting each part of The petitioners are concerned about access to data. the NHS. Only then will any trust return. Alan Winters from the Trade Policy Observatory has set out those concerns in real detail: a potential cost of 5.32 pm £10 billion to the national health service to get access to our own patient records; the payment of royalties to silicon Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): It is always a valley, and legal action against the national health service pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. to boot; and the dilution of data privacy rules if the I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East American trade negotiation objectives are put into law. Falkirk (Martyn Day) on introducing the petition to us. Those are the many concerns that led people to sign I also thank my hon. Friends for their excellent speeches. the petition. Their concern applies not just to US healthcare We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for companies, but to UK right-wing think-tanks and their Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Hornsey and Wood Green link-ups with their American counterparts and allies. (Catherine West) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins). We have already heard the name Daniel Hannan this The petition is about omitting the NHS from future afternoon. He is a co-author of “The Ideal U.S.-U.K. trade deals with the US. The concerns raised by the Free Trade Agreement”, a document that was launched petitioners would be relatively easily dealt with were the in London with the Cato Institute on the same day as Minister, in a few minutes’ time, to commit not just to the Secretary of State for International Trade spoke at what he has said before about the NHS being off the the Cato Institute’s Washington office. I do not believe table, but to putting protections in the Trade Bill—to in coincidences, and I suspect I am not the only one in passing in the House of Lords the amendments that the room who feels that way. Like the petitioners, I am were turned down in this place and retaining them when greatly concerned that this is not just about US healthcare the Bill comes back here in the next few days or weeks. companies, but about UK right-wing think-tanks and That would be the simplest way of dealing with what their representatives. the petitioners are asking for. Let us remember what Mr Hannan and his friends The petitioners are concerned about the American have had to say. When the Cato Institute launched healthcare system, the size and scale of the industry in the report, the co-editor who spoke at the launch, America, the fact that it accounts for one in eight jobs Daniel Ikenson, said: in the United States, its importance to the US economy “Healthcare is a service, we call for opening services to and its importance to shareholders. Those US healthcare competition… This is a free trade agreement, the purpose of companies have a responsibility to maximise shareholder liberalising trade is to expose incumbent business to competition, wealth—as do all companies, of course—so they are including healthcare.” 19WH Trade Deals and the NHS16 NOVEMBER 2020 Trade Deals and the NHS 20WH

[Bill Esterson] the CPTPP would be a future trade agreement. Right-wing think-tanks with links to the Secretary of State and Including healthcare—it is there in the words of the Government also want this to happen, so a lot of think-tanks with which the Secretary of State works reassurance is needed by the petitioners and by many and which advise her on the Board of Trade, to which more people besides. she appointed Mr Hannan only a few months ago. The issue requires far greater scrutiny. I heard one I turn to the so-called comprehensive and progressive hon. Member describing the process for the scrutiny of agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or CPTPP,because trade agreements, which we debated in the Trade Bill. In this is not just about a potential trade agreement with fact, the Minister and I have debated these matters the United States. We do not know what stage such an more than once, in relation to more than one Trade Bill, agreement is at—with the potential for a fast-track and no doubt we will do so again. The reality is that the agreement under the current regime, or something else Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which later on—but we know that the Secretary of State has provides the framework under which we operate, gives made clear her desire to sign the CPTPP, an agreement no guarantee of a debate or vote on trade agreements. It with 11 countries on the Pacific Rim. The service chapter requires the laying in Parliament for 21 days of a trade of that agreement includes negative lists, ratchet clauses, agreement that has been negotiated. It does not provide ISDS and health. There is no opt-out or carve-out for a guaranteed mechanism for debate, because it relies on health. As the Nuffield Trust tells us, negative list systems, the Opposition being granted an Opposition day debate ratchet clauses and ISDS lock out the potential for by the Government. The Government control the agenda Governments to bring public services back in-house in Parliament. Members will have noticed that, for the once they have been privatised. Indeed, they drive further last few weeks, we have not had an Opposition day debate, privatisation and prevent a reduction in it. They take and we went for a long period in the last Parliament away control, rather than giving back control, as some without any Opposition day debates, so there is no might say. guarantee of that process being implemented. Whether a debate at the end of negotiations—if we Neale Hanvey: Does the hon. Gentleman share my are allowed one—is adequate scrutiny is another matter concern that the term “for sale” is used as a cover? entirely.I come back to where I started. If the Government Obviously, the NHS is not going to be put up for sale are serious about exempting the national health service like a house, but parts of the services that it provides from future trade agreements, they should put that in will be contracted out to a range of different private the Trade Bill, support it in the House of Lords and providers, who will suck up the funding in profits rather support it when it comes back here, because they have than ensuring that those investments go where they are the opportunity to do just that. properly supposed to go—to resource healthcare services. We know that the CPTPP is a Government priority in the absence of an agreement with the United States. Bill Esterson: That is right. That is the problem in Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will America, where so much money goes to executive wealth refuse to sign it without carve-outs? As to the lack of or is wasted on administration costs, instead of going scrutiny, that is in the Government’s hands. So far, there into patient care and medical activity.The hon. Gentleman has been a refusal to put the exemption in the Trade is right to make that point. Bill, key Government advisers are committed to I shall quote what the British Medical Association privatisation and we have concerns about the CPTPP. says about CPTPP. The BMA tells us that the UK That all suggests that those who signed the petition would be unable to negotiate any additional carve-outs were absolutely right to do so, and to have concerns not for healthcare services, and it says: only about the United States, but about CPTPP as well. “We do not believe that the NHS is adequately protected under They are right to be concerned about the future of the CPTPP.” national health service in trade deals. As a member of the CPTPP, New Zealand has an ISDS carve-out on health that will not be available to us, Graham Stringer (in the Chair): Minister, before you because the CPTPP is an existing agreement and the start your speech, I ask that you save two or three member countries have made it clear publicly that they minutes at the end for the hon. Member for Linlithgow will not give carve-outs to new joiners. and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) to wind up the debate. On 8 October, the Minister was asked about that in the Chamber. He told us he had met the lead negotiators 5.46 pm for the 11 countries and had enjoyed discussions with The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands): It is a them. Can he provide reassurance that what the BMA pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. has said is not the full story? Did he ask the question I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East and get an answer about whether carve-outs on health Falkirk (Martyn Day) for opening this debate, as well as would be possible, given the existing agreement? When the more than 110,000 members of the public who he responds, can he tell us whether he asked that question raised this topic, which is hugely important to us all. and what the answer was? There have been a lot of rumours, confusion and The Government’s answer to the points that my hon. misstatements about this subject, so I am more than Friends and I have raised is that the NHS is not on the happy to set the record straight. table. If it is not, why did the US negotiating objectives The NHS is this nation’s most popular institution, state that it was? The Government say that the NHS is but it is far more than an institution. For more than not in the existing agreements, and that is true. It is not 70 years, it has been there for all of us, from cradle to in the agreements that we are currently signed up to, but grave. It has played a very personal role in all our lives, this petition is about future trade agreements. For us, in some of the most joyful and, indeed, saddest moments. 21WH Trade Deals and the NHS16 NOVEMBER 2020 Trade Deals and the NHS 22WH

In the midst of this terrible pandemic, the importance At the last four general elections, the Labour party has of the NHS has become even more acute. I pay tribute run on the fact that Charing Cross Hospital will be to the extraordinary staff up and down our country either demolished or close—the last four! I can report who are battling the coronavirus outbreak so valiantly that Charing Cross Hospital is doing very well and, and selflessly, and I extend my deepest sympathy to actually, the Secretary of State for Health announced a those who have lost loved ones during the pandemic, floor-by-floor refurbishment of the hospital just a couple including, I might add, to myself: my father died of of months ago. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to coronavirus on 13 April this year. However, it is thanks say that there has been record investment under this to the bravery and expertise of our world-class doctors, Conservative Government and that trade is the answer nurses and hospital staff in containing the virus that we to our long-term prosperity. are able to meet here in this House today, and I am Wehad a passionate, knowledgeable and superb speech hugely grateful for that. from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford about his Let me be very clear: our NHS will not be for sale in local NHS, which I know quite well. The excellent any future trade deal with the US or, indeed, in any Watford General Hospital has served my family—they come trade deal at all. For the sake of parliamentary time, I from Amersham in Buckinghamshire—for two generations. can be very brief—the word “no” is one of the shortest It is a brilliant hospital, and he spoke with great passion in the language—and say no, not at all and never. about it. Protecting the NHS is a fundamental principle of our We heard some of the fears from the hon. Members trade policy. The NHS, its services and the prices it pays for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Hornsey and Wood for drugs are not for sale, and we will not agree measures Green (Catherine West), for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) that undermine the Government’s ability to deliver on and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins). I will deal with those commitments. The NHS is not, and will never be, the question from the hon. Member for Luton South for sale to the private sector,whether overseas or domestic, about the CPTPP. In the negative or positive lists, one is and no trade deals will ever be able to alter these expressly allowed to exclude public services that one fundamental facts. does not want to be subject to a trade agreement. The The Government have been consistently clear about UK could and would negotiate specific exemptions in our commitment to the guiding principles of the NHS—that CPTPP for the NHS and other public services that we it is universal and free at the point of need. As set out in deem to be important to us. Of course that lies within the October 2017 White Paper “Preparing for our future our rights. UK trade policy”, the Government will continue to The NHS in Scotland is devolved, as we know, but ensure that decisions on how to run public services are the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath made by UK Governments, including the devolved (Neale Hanvey), in his summary, quickly moved on to Administrations,and not—this has never been the case—by talking about separation. In almost record time, even by our trade partners. No trade agreement has ever affected the standards of the Scottish National party, he showed our ability to keep our public services public nor forced that separation is more to him important than either the us to change the way we run them, and that is not going NHS or trade. to change now. Safeguarding the UK’s right to regulate I turn to my old friend—certainly not my hon. Friend, in the public interest and to protect public services, but he is a friend—the hon. Member for Sefton Central including the NHS, is of the utmost importance. That (Bill Esterson). I am not quite sure whether he has was, is and will remain the Government’s position. noticed the subtle change in Labour’s approach to trade I turn to the points raised in the debate. The hon. policy as it has moved across north London from the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) to the two or three points. First, he is right to say that the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury NHS is devolved in Scotland and that trade policy is (Emily Thornberry). On drug prices, the UK has a reserved. We recognise the fact that trade policy impacts robust intellectual property regime for pharmaceuticals on areas of devolved competence, and that is why I and medical devices. We will not make changes to our work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure IP regime that would lead to increased medical prices that we have a common understanding. We work well for the NHS. Our negotiation objectives—a lot of people together in those spaces. have referred to the US’s negotiation objectives, but no The hon. Gentleman mentioned an ISDS threat to one has referred to our objectives, which were published public services. The UK is already subject to the ISDS on 2 March—state that the NHS will not be on the in more than 90 agreements. We have never had a table, the prices paid for drugs will not be on the table successful claim brought against the United Kingdom and the services that the NHS provides will not be on through an ISDS court. No ISDS court could overturn the table. Parliament or force any change to the law. This has been The hon. Gentleman also talked about a set of dates—he stated before, but the Trade Bill refers to the continuity told an incredible story involving the Cato Institute and of existing trade agreements; it does not refer to future an astonishing series of dates. He said that he does not free trade agreements. The EU does not have a trade believe in coincidences, but perhaps he might believe in agreement with the United States; therefore, the United conspiracy theories. States is not within the scope of the Trade Bill. As we are an independent global Britain, the Government I heard some brilliant speeches from my hon. Friends are working hard to build our trade policy. As set out in the Members for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) the Government’s manifesto and again in our negotiation and for Watford (Dean Russell). My hon. Friend the objectives, the NHS will not be on the table. Decisions Member for Bishop Auckland talked about how the on how to run the NHS and all public services are Labour party and others are whipping up fear. That is made by UK Governments, including the devolved absolutely correct, and I have seen it in my constituency. Administrations, and no trade deal will change that. 23WH Trade Deals and the NHS16 NOVEMBER 2020 Trade Deals and the NHS 24WH

Bill Esterson: Will the Minister give way? clinician and patient choice. Scare stories otherwise simply do not fit with the facts. The Government will Greg Hands: I am coming to a conclusion. always put patients and the sustainability of the NHS The UK’s high standards of data protection will be first. maintained. The Government are clear that health and As an independent trading nation, the UK is reaching care data should only ever be used or shared lawfully, out to partners around the world that support our treated with respect and held securely, with the right shared values of freedom and democracy and making safeguards in place. I am going to leave a few minutes great trade deals, starting with our friends in the United for the response, Mr Stringer. It is absolutely clear that States, Australia and New Zealand and the deal with any trade deal could not be ratified without scrutiny by Japan that we have already delivered. It is by working Parliament. There is also a separation between international together as a global community and embracing values- and domestic law, so any changes made to the NHS driven and value-generating trade with like-minded partners through a trade deal would need domestic implementing that we will be able to beat this dreadful virus and build legislation, just as much as if those changes were to be back a stronger economy to sustain our vital public made without a trade deal. There is no way to sidestep services, not least our beloved national health service. Parliament. The Government will never agree to a trade deal with the US or any other country that risks the 5.57 pm future of our national health service or which could undermine the Government’s ability to deliver on our Martyn Day: On behalf of the Petitions Committee, manifesto commitment to the NHS. may I put on the record my gratitude to the Members from all parts of the House who took part in today’s There are, however, benefits of trade for the NHS. debate? If we have learned one thing from the debate The whole debate has been focused on fears and threats, and the petition, it is that there remains a degree of but there are benefits. To continue supporting public public uncertainty. What the public are looking for is services such as the NHS, which we all value and from more than words, so I will say again: what we need is a which we all benefit, it is crucial that we have a strong cast-iron guarantee protecting the NHS. It is not too economy.Now that we have left the EU, we find ourselves much to ask. If we are all in agreement, as appears to be with a golden opportunity to strike free trade deals the case from what has been said, that the NHS is not around the world, which will help to fuel our economic on the table, the public will be left wondering why we recovery from covid-19. are not putting that into law. In conclusion, the question is asked over and over Question put and agreed to. again, but the answer is not going to change. The NHS is not on the table in any future trade deal. The price it Resolved, pays for drugs is not on the table and the services it That this House has considered e-petition 307339, relating to provides are not on the table. The Government will not trade deals and the NHS. accept any trade deal that changes our ability to regulate the NHS or any public services, nor will we agree to any 5.58 pm measures that would put NHS finances at risk or reduce Sitting suspended. 25WH 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Tuition Fees 26WH

Tuition Fees disappointment at the quality of the teaching. Clinical practice did not take place, and they described the fear that this raised: “It isn’t a case of will the medics, dentists and vets of this year [SIR DAVID AMESS in the Chair] come out as less trained individuals but a question of how much [Relevant Documents: Second Report of the Petitions poorer will their practice be.” Committee, Session 2019–21, The impact of Covid-19 on The drop in teaching hours affects arts students as university students, HC 527; Third Special Report of the well. Seminars and debates are difficult to translate into Petitions Committee, Session 2019–21, The impact of online teaching, especially when there are international Covid-19 on university students: Government Response to students, who are often in different time zones because the Committee’s Second Report, HC 780.] of the pandemic. That has meant for some that the interactivity of discussion, which is vital to subjects such as history or English literature, is lost. For those 6 pm who are affected by strike action as well, teaching from Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op): I beg to move, January 2020, through to the summer, was minimal. That this House has considered e-petitions 300528, 302855, In a written submission, the National Union of Students 306494, 324762, and 552911, relating to university tuition fees. expressed a concern: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship “A whole cohort of students would lose faith in the UK’s once again, Sir David. I want to thank Miriam Helmers, education system if they are not financially reimbursed for missed Sophie Quinn, Wiktoria Seroczynska, Maya Ostrowska teaching.” and Georgia Henderson for creating the petitions, which Wiktoria Seroczynska, the creator of the petition to have more than 980,000 signatures, collectively—a very refund student tuition fees for the third semester of significant number. In the order of the names I have 2020, has told me that among those she has spoken to given, the petitions are to “Require universities to reimburse across different universities, students’tuition fees during strike action”, to “Reimburse “comparing the quality of education we were promised to what all students of this year’sfees due to strikes and COVID-19”, we have right now, is shocking.” to “Refund university students for 3rd Semester Tuition She has explained that students feel very let down and 2020”, to “Require universities to partially refund tuition have found it difficult to engage with their learning in fees for 20/21 due to Covid-19” and to “Lower university the same way. Reduced contact hours, a struggle to tuition fees for students until online teaching ends”. engage students in online learning, a lack of mental Each petition differs slightly from the others, but a health support and a lack of connectivity with tutors common thread runs through them, and that is the fact have all contributed to a far reduced experience. The that hundreds of thousands of students are aggrieved pandemic has meant that universities have been forced because they have not received adequate value for money to adapt the way in which they provide teaching, but the from the universities. I want to make it clear that, as the Government’s delay in giving clearer guidance has often Committee has heard in evidence, university staff have meant rushed decisions. Georgia Henderson, who created gone to extraordinary lengths to provide teaching during the petition to lower tuition fees until online teaching the pandemic. To many petitioners, the fault lies at the ends, has echoed this, saying that there has been a lack door of the universities. of clarity from the Government regarding plans of For the last 30 years, school leavers have been told action for students. repeatedly by Government and the media that a university Students were encouraged to return with the promise degree is the best, if not the only, option to take them of a mix of in-person and online courses, but many towards a fulfilling career. For many, gaining a place at found themselves being taught wholly online. This has university is the culmination of a lifelong dream. However, not only cost them rent, but left many isolated in a new it comes at a cost. English universities can charge up to place they have only just moved to, without any form of £9,250 a year in tuition fees. So if, for example, someone support system. As we have recently seen in Manchester, did a three-year course at £9,250 a year and got £6,378 a with a rent strike and the occupation of Owens Park by year for their maintenance loan they would graduate students, it is clear that many feel let down. One student, with £46,884 of debt, and that is before interest is Izzy Smitheman, told the BBC: added. By any stretch of the imagination that is a massive amount of money. We would think that if “They brought us here for profit rather than our safety”. someone is investing that type of money, they deserve Another has said that students feel they were “tricked” an adequate return on the investment, and that if they back into university in September. Students feel greatly do not get it, they should be properly compensated. mistreated by the Government: blamed for the rise in Students simply want value for money. covid cases, locked in accommodation in new cities with I want to explain two of the ways in which many no support network, and not receiving the teaching students feel they did not receive value for money, they have paid for. The Government’s lack of engagement because of the pandemic and strikes. The Petitions with these issues is severely damaging. Committee conducted a survey of people who had The lack of clarity, and the difference between what signed relevant petitions and received more than students were led to believe and the reality of their 25,000 responses from current students. Most students teaching, have hugely affected students’ mental health. who responded told the Committee that teaching hours Since the beginning of the academic year, a student has at the universities had fallen because of the pandemic, died every week from suicide.Let me repeat that horrendous and they were either “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” statistic: since September, every week, a student has with the quality of the education they were receiving. taken their own life. Every week, parents have been told A student enrolled on a clinical course expressed that their child died alone at their university; every 27WH Tuition Fees 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Tuition Fees 28WH

[Chris Evans] The Office of the Independent Adjudicator received 2,371 complaints in 2019. If even 1% of students in week, friends and families grieve for a life cut short; and higher education were to complain to their institution still the Government have not addressed these students’ and have that passed on to the OIA, that would represent issues. Their petitions voice a “desperate cry for help”, a roughly tenfold increase in the number of complaints as Georgia Henderson says. The Government have it had to deal with. Even if the OIA’s capacity were repeatedly failed to plan for the safe learning of students increased, the exact circumstances in which students at universities, leaving those universities to navigate a should expect to receive a refund or be able to repeat way to deliver high-quality teaching at short notice, part of their course are not clear, which would mean a often with devastating effects on the mental health of vast number of lengthy, time-consuming and confusing students. The Government need to realise that, without cases. If the financial burden of those refunds falls proper planning, it is the student—the young person—who entirely on the universities, it will cripple them and suffers. inevitably lead to staff redundancies. Petition 300528 would The Petitions Committee produced a report on the impact of coronavirus on university students. One of its “Require universities to reimburse students’ tuition fees during strike action”. recommendations was that the Government put in place a new process to consider complaints that would cover The petition argues that if universities were forced to complaints arising from covid-19 and other out-of-the- issue students with refunds for missed teaching due to ordinary events that affect the courses of large numbers strike action, that might strengthen the case of striking of students, including large-scale strikes. That would at teaching staff. Ultimately, universities should take their least mean that students who believe themselves to be teaching staff’s complaints seriously and negotiate with entitled to a refund would have a clear method of them in good faith. However, far too often, striking pursuing it. staff feel that this is not the approach being taken. In February, during strike action at universities across the Universities already face a fall in revenue. If they are country, University and College Union chairperson to maintain their high-quality staff and facilities, they Jo Grady said: will not be able to reimburse all students. Therefore, conversations need to be had to ascertain the level of “We are on the same side in this dispute and we hope students refund that students could reasonably demand based on will put pressure on their vice-chancellors” the teaching they received, how feasible it is for universities to send their representatives back to the negotiating to do that and how much the Government should give table to support universities and students. “with a clear mandate to work seriously to try and resolve the The petitions have made it clear that students feel disputes”. “forgotten about” and The universities Minister has said that this situation “cruelly mistreated by the government”, is neither of the universities’making, nor the Government’s. as Georgia Henderson wrote to me. If, as the Government However, the Government have a duty of care. Just as say, they believe that students should be at the heart of the most vulnerable are rightly going to receive funding higher education, they need to act on their concerts. If through the winter grant scheme this year, so too should they do not, they run the risk of tarnishing this country’s the Government look after their students.The Government long-held reputation for excellence in academic institutions. have stepped in to provide financial aid for other essential sectors of our society that have experienced financial difficulty due to the pandemic, but have not given any 6.13 pm aid to higher education. Petition creator Georgia Henderson Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con): I thank the hon. Member has told me that students understand that it is up to for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for bringing this important universities to lower tuition fees. However, matter to the House. I know that he is also the joint “as the government was responsible for increasing the cap on said chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on customer tuition fees, I see it only fair for the government to lower these in service, so he must be appalled by the customer service the light of Covid.” that students are receiving. Universities are vital to our economy and vital for I have been following the matter for almost a year, our country to continue to thrive. We pride ourselves on from the strike action to the first covid-19 lockdown, our educational institutions and on the contributions through the exam situation, the return to university and that our universities make and have made to the world. lockdown again. I have spoken to and supported students Surely we ought to make sure that their integrity is on the way, and I have learned a lot about what they are maintained, that students feel they are being treated going through. fairly, and that higher education in England is not only In fact, I made a Blue Collar Conversations podcast rigorous but good value for money. on the issue on 23 May called “Has COVID19 Injected Currently, if a student wishes to seek reimbursement a Degree of Uncertainty into University Education?”. I from the university, they have the right to take up an spoke to a list of students, including Emily Bethell, who individual complaint. Many students do not know how spoke on behalf of many and relayed some of the the system works, and even if they did, placing the things that had happened. In March, the week before responsibility on the individual is not efficient, reasonable lockdown, she was told that if we went into lockdown, or fair. Many have argued that the current processes the university could cope—that it could move online, it set up to deal with complaints are inadequate for had a good online portal, they could carry on working the volume of complaints expected as a result of the and it would be relatively normal. However, that was coronavirus pandemic. not the case and it did not work out like that. 29WH Tuition Fees 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Tuition Fees 30WH

Despite those institutions being the height of academia, to me that they feared reprisals. They were only in their students watched revision lectures that turned out to be first or second year and they thought they might not get a rehash of those from previous years. As for contact, the grade that they should, so they felt that they did not there used to be one-to-one contact—about 120 hours want to upset the apple cart and would not pursue that per term—but in the summer term that went down to route. They also said that, in a way, covid was a brand just four hours, and there was no reduction in the fees. new situation, so they wanted to forgive the university She did not make a complaint, because she thought that in a way—perhaps it was trying its very best. This was her university was measured on good results, and, “Wehad also something that they had wanted to do all their life, been told that our exams would be marked compassionately, so lots of students did not pursue any sort of refund. which meant that we could all get good results”. Therefore, Since then we have had the summer recess, and there was no recourse, no complaint and she would not months and months have passed. The students went get a refund. She said that this was not her being back to university, having been told they could return. cynical; she said that this is what they are all talking The universities welcomed them and the Government about, as students together. said, “You can go back”. They thought that meant the She said, “You know, I don’t feel like a student. This universities would be up to speed, would be covid-compliant is something I have wanted to do all my life. I have and would be able to teach online. However, that has aimed to get to university. I feel more like a commodity, not proved to be the case. and I don’t feel that others think that my education is I am speaking now on behalf of parents from my paramount. It is to me; that is why I am paying £9,000 constituency. Joe Egan from Wilmslow’s son was only at to attend university.” She also said, “You know what? Newcastle University for 48 hours before he was told What I am receiving now is not what I contracted for. that all his tutorials and lectures would be online. If he It’s not what I signed up to do. I feel more like a tin of had known that beforehand, he would have taken an baked beans, just packed high and sold off—only in this Open University degree. Shirley Smith from Alderley instance, they are not being sold off cheap. They are Edge has a son who is a fresher at the University of being sold off at a very dear price.” She added, “If I had Northampton. She told me that he has only been offered purchased a car with this many problems, I’d have wanted online teaching. She also raised concerns about the it to have been fixed or I’d have wanted my money back”. evacuation-style plan to get students home for Christmas. Then there is Bronwen Kershaw. Again, I spoke Bethan Weston from Wilmslow raised concerns about to her in March, on the 19th. She was in the library and the mixed standard of lectures, among other issues. Her the only thing that she saw was a little notice there daughter is in accommodation with 23 others. She has saying that it would be closed from the following day. not been able to socialise. She is living in a house, but Bronwen studies history and most of her books are because there are no communal areas, they are all sitting actually in hard physical form. With the library being in the halls and on stairways to speak to one another. closed the following day, before the exams that were She is concerned about the debt, the lockdown and the coming up in a couple of months’ time, she had to students’ mental health issues. She said it compares to a quickly get as many physical books as she could. There prison camp. It is unacceptable. How were young students were not that many there, and all the other students allowed to go back to university when universities did were doing the same thing. not have the capability to look after their students? Some of them have literally been locked up in student Bronwen had hoped that this process would perhaps accommodation. set about the modernisation of university—surely the books should be online on JSTOR, or on some sort of Another example comes from the Birley campus at online library catalogue.The universities need to modernise. Manchester Metropolitan University, posted on the She said what she had was “poor service” from March Student Problems website. Some 1,700 students were onwards. She received group emails; nothing was told to self-isolate for 14 days. How was that news broken personalised. There was no interaction. She said that it to them? They went to leave the campus and were told was as if strike action had carried on in that university. by security guards that they had to go back inside. One of her lecturers had poor internet connection at There were no emails for a couple of hours. They did home, which meant she did not get any online tutorials not know what was going on. They got no refund for because it was not possible. So, she felt abandoned and their rent. They all said it was more like Her Majesty’s let down. prison. They were then labelled as super-spreaders and looked down on by the general public. They said that She then looked into how she would go about getting was unfair. They had been told that they could go to a refund, but it is not that easy. Then, 20 weeks ago, via university. What else were they to do? the online platform Student Problems, I was interviewed about how a student gets a refund. Obviously, the On 11 November, the SAFER—Student Action for a contract is between the student and the university, so Fair and Educated Response—report came out. It said the student has to make a complaint against the university. that our universities have prioritised profit over student Then, they have to exhaust the internal process, and welfare, and that the cost of an online honours degree only then can they go to the Office of the Independent at the Open University would be over £9,000 cheaper at Adjudicator for Higher Education. Their complaint the end of three years. It said there is a lack of adequate will be balanced against what the Quality Assurance support in the halls, of regular testing and even of food. Agency for Higher Education says should be the standard We are talking about vulnerable 18 and 19-year-olds for of education expected. However, some students did not whom this may be the first time they have moved away go along that path. I spoke to the host of the Student from home, and this is how they are being treated. Problems website, Sam Rostron, and he asked, “Why My question to the Minister come from students in don’t you think students are following this route? What my constituency, parents and SAFER. The university are their concerns?” I said that many of them had said has claimed tuition fees are a Government issue; the 31WH Tuition Fees 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Tuition Fees 32WH

[Esther McVey] struggling to attend lectures online. I think about how they get on without all the laboratory work that they Government are saying they are a university issue; have to do. They are simply not getting the education people are asking the Government to clarify who is that they need for that course, and I expect that that is responsible. If both university and Government are the case for many courses. That is all off the back of responsible, how and when will the issue be resolved? If shoddy advice that called for face-to-face teaching to it is a university issue, what pressure can Government resume, despite everyone saying that it was a terrible bring to bear on the universities to get this sorted? What idea. As a result, approximately 2,600 university students meetings are Government Ministers having with university and staff have contracted the virus, and many more students, so that they can explain their concerns? Can have had to self-isolate. we have a simpler refund process? Finally, can there be The decision to return to face-to-face teaching was an automatic refund for those who were locked down? dangerous, as has been said by the University and College Universities and Government must do the right thing Union and unions at Manchester, Leeds and elsewhere. by our young people and their families. They have explicitly stated that it has put staff and students in harm’s way. It is ridiculous to tell students to 6.23 pm return to face-to-face teaching, only for them to get to Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab): They say that a university to find that they are sitting in front of their student’s time at university will be the best years of their laptops in their halls of residence. After sending students life, but for thousands of students across the UK at the back to live in communal halls, what happened next was moment, it is a nightmare. Those of us who enjoyed our inevitable: a spike in coronavirus cases in university time at university are probably thinking that we are cities. Once again, that was entirely avoidable if we had lucky that we are not them. They are locked up in their planned properly for the second wave. It is a scandal halls of residence, attending freshers events over Zoom that students are literally being made to pay for this. and running the risk of contracting the virus during It is ludicrous to expect students to continue paying face-to-face teaching. extortionate tuition fees when they are not receiving a This year’s first-year university students already had full service. With any other service, if a customer was to put up the hellish scandal of A-level results day and dissatisfied or something prevented them from receiving now they must contend with the shambles that is this a service to the advertised standard, it would be reasonable Government’s advice to universities on covid-19. While for them to demand a refund, so why is it any different the pandemic is no one’s fault, the way we deal with it for students? We cannot treat university education as a must be. Tuition fees have been a controversial topic of commodity in one respect and not in others. It is either debate over the past couple of decades—I was against a market commodity, in which case a refund can be them then and am against them now. Although it has requested for a poor service, or it is not, in which case it been stated time and again, it cannot be said enough should be free. that education should be a right and not a privilege. We Charging individuals overall to pursue higher education should not charge for it. Ironically, the Cabinet Ministers is wrong at the most basic level, but to continue to who were the driving force behind tripling tuition fees charge them now is profoundly wrong. It is simply some years ago probably went to university free of outrageous. The Government must ultimately consider charge and at the expense of the taxpayer. They have cancelling tuition fees entirely, but in the meantime they effectively pulled up the drawbridge behind them. should consider refunding the cost of tuition for the The commercialisation of higher education is a big entire time that students’university experience is impacted shame for this country. Lumbering 21-year-olds with by the coronavirus pandemic. £50,000-worth of debt is absolutely disgraceful. When we look at other countries across the world we see 6.29 pm thriving, high-income countries investing in their higher education while we push the cost on to students and Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind): It is a pleasure their families. We will hear again, “It’s fine. You won’t to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank have to repay it until you start earning £26,000-plus a the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for securing year,”but the psychological toll that that massive amount this important debate. of debt leaves on an individual is not mentioned. We all Taken together,these five petitions reflect the inexcusable know that pay now or pay later, debt is still debt, and way that students have been treated during this pandemic. those from lower socio-economic backgrounds will always I share the sentiment behind each of them, and I stand take longer to pay it back and will suffer harsher in solidarity with the students in Leicester and across consequences. the country who have stood up against their mistreatment, At the moment, university students are paying £9,250 but I believe that the demands of the petitions, which a year to attend university, or, as some of them say, focus on partial rebates of tuition fees, do not go far £9,250 to effectively live in prison-like conditions. Students enough. After all, the current crisis is not the fault of in Manchester have dubbed their university “Her Majesty’s students. It was this Government who failed to listen to Prison, Manchester University”because fences have been trade unions and scientific experts and allowed students put up to keep them in. Students are paying to stay in to attend universities just as coronavirus cases were halls while watching their lectures online over Zoom and beginning to rise. many other platforms. International students from Europe In late August, the University and College Union have been asked to come to this country, but, having left warned against students returning to university.It rightly their countries, they are attending their lectures online. raised fears that the migration of more than 1 million I studied biomedical sciences for my first degree, and students across the UK risked doing untold damage to I think of all the biomedical scientists at the moment people’s health and exacerbating the worst health crisis who are in their first year of university and probably of our lifetimes. That was especially the case given the 33WH Tuition Fees 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Tuition Fees 34WH

Government’s failure to introduce a properly functioning universities into profit-seeking businesses. Can the track-and-trace system and the fact that they do not Government simply follow the example of most of our have any UK-wide plans to test students and staff European neighbours by scrapping fees and ensuring regularly. A few weeks after the University and College that young people are not punished for seeking an Union’s warning, the Government’s Scientific Advisory education? Group for Emergencies recommended a shift to online learning 6.35 pm “unless face-to-face teaching is absolutely essential”, Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I yet that was ignored too. The result has been as devastating also want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn as it was predictable. (Chris Evans) for securing this timely and important debate. I studied mathematics, statistics and computers for Covid-19 hit the student population hard in spring my first degree in Coventry, and I can tell hon. Members and summer this year, particularly the three universities that the numbers do not add up. To date, there have in my Liverpool, Riverside constituency. The immediate been more than 45,000 positive cases of coronavirus on response was to shift to online learning wherever possible. university campuses, including 500 at the University of Students were advised to return home for their third Leicester and a further 500 at De Montfort University term and some—although by no means all—university in my constituency of Leicester East. Leicester has been accommodation offered refunds. The House of Commons in perpetual lockdown, or special measures, for the Petitions Committee’s second report, “The impact of longest time of any city, yet we still face those problems. Covid-19 on university students” published in July, I pay tribute to all university staff across both universities acknowledged that, although it shifted the responsibility in Leicester, who are producing innovative solutions, on to individual universities and student accommodation including in-house regular testing, which is unique to to assess all calls for refunds from individual students. the University of Leicester, flexible accommodation Seventy-eight per cent of students surveyed reported contracts and blended learning. They are doing all that being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their learning in exceptional, difficult circumstances to provide for experience in that period, compared with 84% being our students in Leicester. satisfied or very satisfied in the previous year. I think The fault does not rest with universities. According that if the survey were done again now, we would find to the National Union of Students, 20% of students the levels of dissatisfaction to be even higher. have confirmed that they will not be able to pay their rent Despite the lack of an effective test, track and trace and essential bills this term, and three in four students system, hundreds of thousands of students were encouraged are anxious about paying their rent, which demonstrates back on to campus in September and we saw the impact that they are desperately in need of urgent financial of that almost immediately. Rates of infection spiralled support from the Government. As we have heard, students among the student population, particularly for first have been forced to stay in their university halls, which years in halls of residence. Forty thousand students have has placed an intolerable strain on their mental health. tested positive for covid-19 and thousands more have In some cases, fences have been built around the been forced to self-isolate. Far from experiencing the accommodation that, just months ago, students were same quality of student experience in freshers’ week, as assured would be safe to attend, and they are being so many universities promised, for many students the forced to pay £9,000 per year for the privilege. reality was being locked down in small rooms, only Under the Conservatives, universities have been treated having access to online teaching and a socially isolated as private businesses and left at the mercy of market experience, with deteriorating mental health. We have forces while top salaries soar and students pay more for seen young adults, most of them away from their homes less. Tuition fees have trebled and maintenance grants for the first time, being locked in and their premises have been scrapped, leaving the poorest graduates with patrolled by guards as they are charged extortionate an average debt of £57,000. A University of Manchester amounts of money for poor-quality food parcels. Two student said recently: weeks ago, we saw the situation in in Manchester, where the university students were fenced “We’re being treated as though we exist for profit, for money, in in their halls. and nothing else.” Now, students are being encouraged to leave for Will the Minister tell universities to halt in-person home between 2 and 9 December; encouraged to vacate teaching as soon as possible, help students stay at home their accommodation three weeks early. None of that is after Christmas if necessary, and issue clear guidance the students’ fault. They were encouraged by the about moving as much non-essential work as possible Government and the universities to return full time to online, in line with other workplaces? The Government campuses, despite warnings from student bodies and must work with student representatives to ensure that campus unions, concerned about those scenarios. There students are not forced to pay for the suffering that they is no certainty that university life—social or teaching—will have been forced to endure. return to normal for the second term. That is not worth Will the Government move beyond that and scrap £9,000-plus of anyone’s money, and it is not good tuition fees for good? We all benefit from an educated enough for the Government to put the responsibility of society. Education is not just vital for our economy; it the crisis on individual students to request refunds. The lets people develop their talents and overcome injustices Secretary of State for Education must take responsibility and inequalities, and helps us understand each other and develop a system for refunding fees for students and form social bonds. The last decade of extortionate who have suffered from a lack of face-to-face teaching, tuition fees has been a failed experiment, which has and students must be compensated for breaking their saddled young people with debt, deterred working-class tenancy agreements, so that they can return home where people from gaining a higher education and turned our they will get the support they need. 35WH Tuition Fees 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Tuition Fees 36WH

6.38 pm programmes in the light of the online provision that we have heard much about. However, online provision does Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op): It is not replace in-person tuition, which helps people to always a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, nurture students to reach their best, which we want for Sir David. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for this generation of students and for those who are applying Islwyn (Chris Evans) for opening today’s debate so well. to university at this time. I also thank the University of York and York St John University for the support they have given students at We face a serious economic crisis. This is not new, but this challenging time. They have worked closely with the the UK’s performance has consistently lagged behind student bodies to overcome insurmountable challenges similar economies for the past decade. In addition, the and to make the campuses and the universities as safe as productivity of the economy has been low.Education—at they possibly can. However, that does not detract from all levels—is proven to be the single biggest factor in the experience that students have had over the past few significantly improving economic performance. It is the months. Isolated, often challenged with mental health one thing that brings about social mobility. It also crises and having to conduct their social life and teaching opens up new doors and new avenues for people to in a strange city and a strange place. It is not the learn. However, as these petitions have shown, having to expectation that students have come to deserve, let pay for tuition is a major cause of discord and has alone have to pay for. I am pleased that the extraordinary meant that many who could benefit from a university efforts in our city have meant that, despite the initial education will not access it due to the fees structure. peak in infection, infection rates have fallen significantly, Therefore, we as a country need to invest in the skills but we are not over the hurdle yet and could be in this to deliver the economic output to which we aspire. situation for another 12 months or—who knows—even Much of that will need to be in new areas of growth— more. That is why the debate is so timely, in order to digital, biosciences, advanced technology—as well as help us get things right for the future. where there are recognised skills shortages, in areas I thank the thousands of students from York who such as engineering. We need therefore need to attract signed the five petitions before us, some of which call students to fire up our economy, and I want to ensure for the reimbursement of fees during periods of industrial that in my constituency, we also find a pathway—through action that were clearly intended to improve the working both further and higher education—for all those who environment of our teaching staff—who are dedicated are falling out of the labour market, as we re-orient to students—protesting casualisation in the sector and skills for the future economy. its impact on their terms and conditions. Hundreds also I draw the Minister’s attention to the BioYorkshire signed petitions about refunds, partial refunds and the project, with which I know she is familiar. That investment lowering of tuition fees, which the Treasury must look will bring 4,000 job opportunities in York and Yorkshire, at. However, I will look at the far more fundamental will ensure that start-ups and spin-out companies innovate issue behind it: the broken model of university funding. 1,200 businesses, and will return £5 billion in gross I put it firmly on the record that the issues highlighted value added to the Treasury. This not about cost to the in these petitions point to why tuition must be free. The Treasury but about investment in skills for those kinds risk currently falls on students, and if universities were of outcomes, not least in the light of what our economy to reimburse their students, they would become bankrupt, now faces. Putting fees in the way of that is neither so the Treasury and the Minister must find a solution. smart nor beneficial. This is our one opportunity to Labour has a solution. pivot the fortunes of our economy significantly. The university sector is underfunded. Higher education Someone who is currently out of work will be nervous is the engine to economic success, and we need it to about what is on the horizon. They will not want to risk attract investment that produces a high economic yield investing in their future if they do not know what it will and recognises how both tuition and research places the bring apart from significant debt. That is why the UK’s economy on a global footing. Investment brings petitioners’ call shines a light on why university tuition return, but there is still no certainty over the future of should be fully funded in future. Universities have a research funding. With no future EU agreement, what serious role to play in our economic recovery, which will happen to the Horizon programme? We are yet to must be the Government’s prime focus, and no barriers hear of the Government’s shared prosperity fund and should be placed in the way of that. the impact it will have on university research. We also Although many students can engage in online learning, know that the international purchase of UK education, 40% of courses offered in my city include an element of through our international students, is significantly at laboratory or clinical practice, so students need to be risk: numbers have reduced. Universities have put incredible safely present in person to complete their studies. Many investment into supporting those students, who obviously students are frustrated that, because of the practical pay extortionate amounts for that service yet arrive in a nature of their degrees, they have not been able to locked-down, strange country before they commence complete them and qualify, particularly those whose their online studies. What are we doing to our students courses included teaching and clinical practice. For and young people? Signing these petitions shows that clinical practice, those students were not able to help the students have lost confidence in a sector that was once NHS in their final year because of the current situation. the jewel in the crown of the UK. We have also heard We need to ensure that recompense is in place to enable about the real impact that this is having on the welfare students to recoup their losses. They clearly have an of students, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn important role to play in supporting the infrastructure set out, and on their mental health and wider wellbeing. of our country through this pandemic. The whole funding model, with the spotlight being I am sorry to put it in these terms, but we now have a shone on it, must be reviewed. We are all aware of the marketised education system, which is why students are discourse over undergraduate, masters and research right to call into question the value of their investment. 37WH Tuition Fees 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Tuition Fees 38WH

It changes the relationship between student and university, of course people have experienced in Leicester, given which should be one of co-production, working together the restrictions that they have been under for an incredibly to create academic success, leading research, and stretching long time; and the need for us to recognise publicly the and growing people, with universities working hand in value of our universities. We all benefit from an educated glove with students. society. Online learning provides opportunities if properly We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for invested in. About eight years ago, I spoke with a Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson). I am slightly biased medical academic about the possibilities of remote learning. because I went to the University of Liverpool, but it is a He told me about how he had organised global seminars, great city to go to. She referred to shocking statistics on bringing together the world’s top surgeons and academics the decline in student satisfaction; the need for effective to advance medical practice and join clinical techniques test, track and trace; the issue of mental health; and the and research with practitioners who wanted to advance problems that there have been with accommodation. the frontiers of medicine. Cost barriers restrained We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York opportunity, however. If we place those costs on our Central (Rachael Maskell), whose words are always so NHS at a time like this, we will lose out on those kinds considered, thoughtful and thought-provoking. I really of opportunities. That example can be extrapolated to loved the final message in her speech, about getting this engineering or environmental science. We could have right for the future. She spoke about the need for people high-quality online learning, drawing from the best in to be part of a co-production, working together towards the world, to advance people’s opportunities to engage academic success, and about how marketisation has in a future economy. damaged that relationship, which is so important. The world of education is changing significantly, so I am, of course, grateful to the Petitions Committee we must look once again at how we invest in skills to for bringing this matter forward. I thank all the staff ensure that students are at the core of the future economy. working in universities at the moment, given the incredibly There must be no barriers, which fees create. That is a difficult situation that they face. Often, the discourse is failed model. Vitally, we must look not only at what just about the tutors working in universities, but of should happen with recompense now, but at how we can course there are also the people working in catering, get things right in future. Unlocking our economy and who are finding themselves redundant at the moment, giving people every opportunity they deserve: that is the the people working in security, the people working in game-changer. the libraries and the people working in administration. Many of the staff in those jobs are currently on furlough, 6.50 pm because of the uncertain situation we are in. I express Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) our thanks to each and every one of them. (Lab): It is always a pleasure to serve under your The existence of these petitions will come as no chairmanship, Sir David. I thank everyone who took surprise to anyone who has been following the unfolding part in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for—I am events in higher education. Many students are angry going to say his constituency wrong—Islwyn (Chris Evans) and frustrated, and they have every right to feel like highlighted the amount of debt that students leave that. This year’s intake had to deal with the fiasco over university with; issues raised by students; the anger and A-levels,whichresultedfromacombinationof stubbornness resentment that they feel at the moment; and the issue and a prejudice that meant that the Government could of mental health support. It is a shocking statistic that not bring themselves to trust the judgment of teachers. every week a student takes their own life. Regardless of Just like the need to fairly determine GCSE and A-level any political opinions, we should be united in saying grades, the reopening of universities in the autumn was that we need to do something about that, so I thank my bound to need addressing. The movement of almost hon. Friend for drawing it to our attention. 2 million people around the UK and their randomised The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) mixing in confined shared spaces such as halls of residence was right to highlight the cost of a university degree and houses in multiple occupancy were guaranteed to and the need to move publications online and make result in a rise in covid cases. Such mass migration could things more accessible. I agree on the need for openness have been seriously contemplated only in the presence and honesty about the experience that students can of a fully functioning test, track and trace system, as expect, so that we do not repeat this problem in January many hon. Members mentioned. That means one that is and they have full knowledge of what to expect before fast, accurate and easily accessible, but what we have they get there. Then they can make the decision, if they had has been utterly shambolic. wish, to go to the Open University or their local university. At the time when universities reopened, people were We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for being asked to drive hundreds of miles for a test while Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). As people know, the local test centres stood empty. Universities had been Labour party is against the use of tuition fees. My hon. promised thousands of testing kits, but they never Friend spoke about the impact on people from lower materialised. The mushrooming of cases was predictable socioeconomic backgrounds, how they often have to and predicted. It led to the experience that students spend longer repaying the debt, and how the system is were promised and so naturally expected being radically therefore very unfair, and about the need to plan properly different from that which they had to endure. For this for the second wave. We must not repeat this problem in experience, they are being required to take on large January. amounts of debt by the current funding system, which My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East was also mentioned by hon. Members. The system not (Claudia Webbe) highlighted the damage from not having only leaves students owing debts that in large part will a plan for the return in September; the need for test and never be repaid, but leaves universities competing in a trace to protect staff and students; the difficulties that marketplace for students and reliant on the income that 39WH Tuition Fees 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Tuition Fees 40WH

[Emma Hardy] students who have lost income from job losses; on 17 June for the reimbursement of students who have each student brings with their fees. Labour has said paid accommodation deposits; and on 18 June to support time and again that that system is neither fair nor students in institutions that have moved to online-only sustainable. The current situation makes that abundantly teaching. clear. The same pot of money went, on 23 June, to support The financial pressures on students were a matter of repayments on unneeded student accommodation again; great concern before the end of the last academic year, on 29 June to provide support for international students and that is set to continue. The NUS survey of 10,000 in difficulty; and on 30 June to help with widening students in March and its follow-up in September showed participation and access. Interestingly, that widening that 50% of them relied on income from employment to participation and access is the actual purpose of the support themselves. Half reported that fund of money, but on 2 July it was to provide support “the income of someone who supports them financially has been for mental health; on 20 July, incredibly, to support UK impacted by Covid-19”, universities facing financial failure; and on 21 July to and three quarters expected to struggle financially over act as a justification for the lack of bespoke support the coming months. packages for universities. Students cannot top up with universal credit, and yet On 7 September, the money is now the answer to there has been no acknowledgement by the Government postgraduate student support, both PhD and master’s, of the impact of, first, the tier 2 and tier 3 restrictions in two separate answers. On the same date, it is doing or, now, the national lockdown on a student’s ability to double duty as support for students facing hardship support themselves financially. Many students with part- given the lack of part-time jobs. On 9 September, it is time work in bars or restaurants would work right up to helping universities with their applications from students Christmas before returning home. Now they must return from disadvantaged backgrounds, and on 16 September by 9 December, which is another blow to their finances it is helping universities with resources to combat the that has been unremarked on by this Government. A covid-19 outbreak. On 18 September,it is back supporting bad situation is set to get worse while the Government student mental health. On 25 September, it is to support sit on their hands. access to online learning, now for the new first-year The insecurity coming from the struggle to pay bills, students. On 29 September, it is to support university find rent and put food on the table can only make worse students unable to provide a guarantor to secure their the mental stress resulting from the chaotic circumstances accommodation. That was a brand-new one—I had not around isolation and accommodation lockdowns. A heard it used for that before. huge group of young people have found themselves The 29 September was a very hard day for the awayfrom home for the first time,with limited opportunities £256 million, as it was also the answer to the question of to make new connections and build friendships. This is student hardship and mental health support for the an extremely toxic situation, and I am deeply concerned coming academic year. It probably needed a little lie for those who found themselves adrift in it. down after that, but it was back at work on 30 September, In a letter I received in September, the Minister against student hardship, and on 1 October for first-year assured me that the Government’s “commitment to students and debt worries. The £256 million on 8 October supporting students” is “unwavering” and demonstrated was to cover student wellbeing and mental health, twice, in “a range of initiatives” put in place to support and digital access, and on 12 October it was to cover the “financial hardship” and “mental health”. However, I affordability and availability of e-books, as well as see no evidence of such commitment. The only thing digital access. that could be described as “unwavering” has been use of On 13 October, the Government said: the figure of £256 million, as highlighted by Jim Dickinson from Wonkhe. “We have asked providers to prioritise the mental health and wellbeing of students during this period” The £256 million has done an awful lot of work. It was first employed on 27 April, in answer to a question and that the DFE had provided them with financial on what support the Government were providing to support in the form of £256 million. On 19 October, the help students meet the extra costs involved in the switch £256 million was to support digital and online learning. to online learning, and then on 1 May to help prevent On 20 October, the Government said that students who digital poverty; on 6 May to provide laptops to vulnerable are care leavers or estranged from their families can rely and disadvantaged young people; on 11 May for on support from the £256 million. On 21 October, it was employment and student income support; on 13 May to for accessing counselling and support services, and on combat any increase in the drop-out rate of low-income 23 October it was for supporting mental health and students; and on 15 May to provide emergency hardship support services. On 2 November, the DFE was asked grants to university students from low-income households whether it was providing additional resources and funding —this is all the same fund of money, by the way. for universities in tier 3 and tier 2 areas. It said that, yes, it was—from the £256 million. Finally, on 9 November, That £256 million was also employed on 8 May to the £256 million was providing support for students support rent repayments for unneeded student who are required to remain at university during Christmas. accommodation and on 19 May to support those at risk I forgot to mention that the fund was reduced this of homelessness. On 21 May, it was accommodation year—it would be funny if it was not so serious. costs again, and on 29 May it was making educational websites free—that was a great proposal by Jisc, which I Time and time again, the Government have spurned hope the Minister revisits. The money was back on opportunities to do the right thing and provide concrete 2 June for laptops and 4G access; on 9 June to support help for students. A cohort of young people are looking 41WH Tuition Fees 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Tuition Fees 42WH for emotional and material support, and they have so 7.3 pm far found themselves abandoned by this Administration, who shamelessly repeat “£256 million” in response to The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan): I every single question asked of them about students. congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans)—is that right? When will the Government finally provide new and adequate funding to be directed towards university Chris Evans: It is the most difficult one to pronounce. hardship funds? The extension of funding for the Student Minds website is welcome, but the mental health challenges Michelle Donelan: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman facing students are more severe than was anticipated on securing this important debate, and I am grateful for only a few months ago. What further support will the the opportunity to respond to a number of the points Minister provide? When will the Government properly that he and other hon. Members have made. invest in eradicating digital poverty and ensure that all students have the technology to learn? Will they look I acknowledge the significant impact that covid-19 again at the proposals for providing free internet access has had on staff, students and higher education providers. for online learning resources? The Government do not for one minute underestimate that. This pandemic has been hard for all of us, but in I want to take this opportunity to mention the fantastic so many ways young people have been disproportionately work of student unions up and down the country. I impacted. Students have been left facing a number of know from my conversations with them that, although challenges.I am hugely grateful for the resilience,innovation the Government did not anticipate the problems that and dedication shown by staff and students over the students and universities would face, they did. They past nine months. The constant uncertainty has made delivered freshers’ week, whether online or in person, things worse, but the improvements in mass testing and with extra covid restrictions and at very short notice. constant scientific advances, including a potential vaccine, That made new students feel welcomed and able to offer a glimmer of hope. settle in as best they could. They set up covid-secure Wehave heard some compelling speeches today focusing social spaces so that new students could continue to on the case for a tuition fee refund. I repeat that the meet. Many student unions have been delivering food Government get how hard the ramifications of covid parcels to students while they were self-isolating and in have been. In fact, they have been at the forefront of my lockdown. mind throughout. Since March, therefore,I have emphasised When the lockdown was first introduced in March, the importance of keeping universities open during the the Government refused to get universities around the pandemic, as I reiterated in my recent letter to higher table to agree a joint approach and offered only the flimsiest education providers. We simply cannot ask young people of advice. It was the student unions across the UK that to put their education and lives on hold indefinitely. launched a campaign to get their universities to commit The human cost of lost opportunity and damaged to no-detriment policies and ensure that students get social mobility would be immense. The Government the grades they deserve. They successfully lobbied were elected on a manifesto to level up; curtailing the universities and accommodation providers to release ambitions and dreams of our young is not the way to students from tenancy contracts for accommodation achieve that. they no longer required. They continue to show their We listened to the scientific advice, which informed value as a voice and a source of support for the students our higher education guidance at every stage, including they represent. What discussions is the Minister having the return to university. The hon. Member for Islwyn with the NUS so that she can listen to the advice they and many other hon. Members have called for a blanket can give about the real issues facing students right now tuition fee refund, but it should be noted that the and support them in the excellent work they are doing? Government do not set the minimum level of tuition Students have a right not only to be heard but to be fees. We set the maximum, and we have been very clear given answers. What is the Minister doing to ensure that that if higher education providers want to continue to universities have plans to make up for lost learning and charge the maximum, they must ensure that the quality, to guarantee students’ learning outcomes for the duration quantity and accessibility of tuition is maintained. We of their degrees? Instead of endlessly issuing guidance, have been working closely with the Office for Students when will she sit down and work with universities and to ensure that, and we will continue to do so. provide the support they need to ensure students get We have heard accounts of students who feel that the what they are entitled to—what they were promised by quality of their education has declined. My message to universities and the Government? them is that there is a system in place that can help. The Minister has said that the Office for Students First, a student should pursue the official complaints regularly reviews online tuition, so how exactly is that procedure at their university. If they remain unsatisfied, being conducted? How many courses in how many they should go to the OIA. That can lead to some form universities is it looking at, and how often is it doing of tuition fee refund. Without the first stage, institutions that? What is being done about those who need placements would not have the opportunity for early resolution of to complete their qualifications, many of whom have complaints with students, so it is important. been badly affected by the pandemic? What is being I hear the concern, including from my right hon. done to help PhD students who are yet to complete Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), that their projects due to covid restrictions but who are students may be reluctant to come forward. I reassure running out of funding and are having their requests for all students, however, that the OIA’s good practice extensions refused? What about masters students in a framework is clear that there must be appropriate levels similar position? And please do not refer to the £256 million of confidentiality without disadvantage and that providers pot again. should make that clear to all students. 43WH Tuition Fees 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Tuition Fees 44WH

[Michelle Donelan] and we agree. A range of guidance for students and providers already exists—from the OFS, the Competition OIA cases will normally be completed within 90 days, and Markets Authority,the OIA and the Quality Assurance and the process is designed to make it simple and easy Agency for Higher Education—and we have been working for students.The form is online.It asks for basic information to highlight and co-ordinate that advice even more for and a summary of the complaint. The OIA requires students. Universities must anyway adhere to consumer the provider rather than the student to send it all the law and make their complaints process, and the OIA’s information. Some hon. Members have argued that the process, clear to students. The NUS has promoted this policy places too much on the shoulders of students. process during the pandemic, as have I, especially on student-facing media. Esther McVey: As a point of clarification, it will not As the Petitions Committee recommended, we have stay anonymous if the first stage is for the student to go established a working group that includes the NUS, the via the university for redress. OFS, Universities UK, the OIA and the CMA. The OFS is working on a comms campaign, and a new page Michelle Donelan: The whole purpose of having that is now on its website that pulls together existing guidance first stage is for the university to have a chance to deal on consumer issues. The OIA is consulting on new with the complaint, as there might be opportunities to arrangements for dealing with complaints from groups do so that do not include refunds. I was trying to of students, to speed up the process and ensure that express the fact that, in the formal process with the those students who have a degree of commonality can Office of the Independent Adjudicator,there are protections be brought together in one complaint. I am also working for students against any potential backlash that might on additional ways to further promote the rights of be feared from going against the university. The degree students and the processes they should follow, including of anonymity is hindered—if it is completely anonymous, working with Martin Lewis and his Money Saving it is impossible to pursue a complete complaints process— Expert team. but there are protections for students. Further to the comments made by my right hon. As I was saying, hon. Members have argued that the Friend the Member for Tatton, I want every student to policy places too much on the shoulders of students know that they do have consumer rights. The CMA and that we should instead adopt Government finance- produced guidance on this issue earlier in the year and, backed refunds. I wholeheartedly dispute the suggestion for higher education providers, it is clear: universities that all students are being let down. Tuition does look should have been clear before the start of the academic different, because we are in the midst of a global year about what students could expect in these extraordinary pandemic, but different does not have to mean inferior. circumstances. If students feel they have not got what Universities have invested heavily in innovative and they expected, they should follow the process. As outlined dynamic learning and have utilised technology. I have by the CMA, each student has a contractual agreement, seen many examples of interactive lessons that staff and that agreement will differ per institution, which is have worked tirelessly, hour after hour, to produce. In another reason why a blanket system of refunds would fact, a recent survey by Unite showed that 81% of not necessarily work. students were happy that they did not defer, and four in Once again, let me be clear: it is not acceptable for five agreed that, although it is not how they expected students to receive anything less than the high-quality their first university year to be, they valued their time education they expect from our world-leading sector. A there. change in the mode of delivery to online or blended I am not for one moment suggesting that there have learning should not mean that quality declines. This is not been some institutions, or some faculties within not a case of “pay the same and get less”; this is about them, that may not have given students the learning providers changing their mode of delivery in an they deserve, as we have heard in accounts today. For unprecedented situation to prioritise public health. those students, the process is in place; that is exactly Providers will be best placed to be informed about why it was set up. The majority of students, however, decisions regarding the proportions of online and in-person have been supported by hard-working staff, who have learning, working with their local Public Health England invested hour after hour to support students in their teams. There are so many examples of innovative providers learning. There has been an enormous effort made and the work they have done. I will highlight just a few. throughout the higher education sector to maintain the The University of Leeds utilised virtual classroom high quality expected by this Government. In fact, technologies, enabling students in Leeds and those studying when done well, online learning takes many more hours remotely to engage together, and this has been seen in to produce and costs more, as the fixed costs—including many universities. The University of Northampton used labour—remain the same and are combined with additional webinar software to successfully replicate a mock courtroom technology costs. scenario, and the University of Sheffield’s faculty of Yes, universities are autonomous institutions, but as engineering developed an approach to remote teaching a Government, we have a responsibility to the millions of practical elements, shared with the sector. Some of students studying across the country to ensure that universities, such as Cambridge, have sent science, their education can continue and that it continues in a technology, engineering and mathematics students items way that meets the high quality bar that we usually of lab equipment to work with at home, and there are expect, and that they expect. many, many more examples. The findings of the Petitions Committee inquiry were The OFS has stipulated that quality must be maintained clear that although students who are entitled to a refund and that the conditions of registration must continue to should be able to access information about how to be met. It is directly engaging with those providers that claim, a wide-scale refund should not be the way forward, have moved their provision online due to the coronavirus 45WH Tuition Fees 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Tuition Fees 46WH restrictions and is assessing material to check that the each university normally has its own hardship pots as quality and quantity of provision are maintained and well. The Department has also allocated £195 million that it is accessible. Students can raise their concerns for technology devices for educational settings, for which directly with the OFS. care leavers at higher education providers qualify. However, tuition fees do cover much more than simply teaching: they include the support services that universities Emma Hardy: I have made the point that I think the offer, such as mental health and wellbeing, as well as the £256 million fund is a little stretched at the moment. provision of study spaces, library resources and much Unless I am mistaken, the £195 million fund for digital more. It is clear that these important services must be access is available only for students who were care maintained, especially when students are isolating, in leavers; it is not available universally for all students. regards to wellbeing, mental health and communications. We as a Government have been very clear about that. Michelle Donelan: Yes, that is exactly what I said. The Department has allocated that money across educational To answer the question asked directly by my right hon. settings and care leavers in higher education can access Friend the Member for Tatton regarding my engagement that. However,we have encouraged universities to prioritise with students, which was also posed by the hon. Member digital poverty and accessibility.Accessibility is something for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), that the OFS has been strong on, because everyone I have regularly engaged with the NUS. I have engaged should have access to education of quality.The Secretary with the OFS student panel and with students who are of State has also commissioned the chair of the OFS to present for the various visits I make on a regular basis, conduct a review of digital learning and teaching, including particularly the working groups of care leavers who are digital poverty. students. I have also done a magnitude of student-facing media, answering questions in online forums. I believe Bell Ribeiro-Addy: Is the Minister aware that, more that is essential, because I should be speaking to students generally, a number of schools did not receive the and the sector, detailing our policy and responding to devices that were promised by the Government before their queries. the end of the summer, and that when many of them Rather than focusing on wide-scale refunds that in came back in September they were sent emails saying reality would make little difference to the money in that the number of devices they had been promised for students’ pockets—and let us not forget that more than the children, on the basis of what is allowed for care 50% of students never pay back their full student debt—the leavers and so on, was reduced? Government are focusing on the outcomes of the higher education experience. We are focusing on ensuring that Michelle Donelan: You will correct me if I am wrong, the courses lead to qualifications, and working hard so Sir David, but I believe that question is slightly out of that students are supported and safe. Drawing on the scope for a petition on higher education. In relation to expertise of the higher education taskforce that I set up, higher education, my understanding is that the care leavers we have been providing robust public health advice and who have needed those devices have received them. If guidance to universities, so I dispute the claim made any hon. Member knows of cases to the contrary, I earlier in the debate that the Government have not would be more than happy to pick that matter up. given clarity to universities. I agree with many of the points that have been made From the start of the pandemic my priority has been about the crucial role that universities play in social to protect student mental health and wellbeing, and we mobility, including the point, made by the hon. Member have asked providers to prioritise that. We have worked for York Central (Rachael Maskell), about the economic closely with the Office for Students to create the Student recovery. Universities will be vital in that mission as we Space to address the additional mental health challenges progress. that covid presents. That is a £3 million project, to be This has been an unprecedented year, so it is really delivered with Student Minds, and it has recently been important to recognise the tireless work of university extended. That is on top of wider Government support lecturers, administrators and support staff over the past that includes £9 million for charities. We monitor it all few months, and how students have adapted. However, the time. My heart goes out to all the families who have I will make one message clear today: students have not experienced student suicide in the past few months, and been forgotten. I will continue to work across Government to the friends and all the people who knew those students. to ensure that universities uphold their obligations under It is an awful tragedy, and no words can give an account consumer law. We must ensure that students and staff of how I, or other hon. Members here today, feel are safe and supported, and that students receive the about it. high quality of education that they rightly expect. The hon. Members for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle raised the 7.20 pm issue of student hardship and the £256 million fund. We have clarified that providers can use that money for the Chris Evans: Sir David, you have chaired many debates entire academic year. It is for student hardship—for over the years, including many I have spoken in, so you digital devices, for mental health support—so it is right will know that my constituency has been referred to as that we keep referring to it. We were quite up front at “Iswine” and “Islin”. Indeed, in a debate on diabetes the beginning about how it could be utilised. Before the that you chaired—it was a number of years ago, so I do beginning of the academic year—before August—we not know whether you remember it—I was referred to also outlined that £23 million per month could be as the hon. Member for insulin. [Laughter.] I make that utilised. I am afraid I shall continue to use that figure, point just to apologise to some of the petitioners, because because it was for the entire academic year. Student I tripped over their names and hope they will forgive hardship is something that we continue to monitor, and me. They were making really important points. 47WH Tuition Fees 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Tuition Fees 48WH

[Chris Evans] longer be achieved. If people hope for the type of student experiences that I enjoyed, and that I think This has been a very passionate debate. We have everybody in this room enjoyed, that is not going to heard contributions from my hon. Friend the Member happen. However, what people do expect and should for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), the hon. Member for receive is the top-quality education that this country is Leicester East (Claudia Webbe), my hon. Friends the renowned for throughout the world. There should be no Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and excuse about that. When people sign up for university, for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and the right hon. they are making a massive financial commitment, and Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). We had a fantastic the Government should step up to that as well. summing-up speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Members made many other points tonight, but I will Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), focus on the point that my friend the right hon. Member as well as the response from the Minister. for Tatton made about the Open University. The way The wonderful thing about petitions debates is that things are, if people are just going to enrol and end up we know we are debating something of central importance doing only online courses, they might as well stay with to people. The various petitions we have discussed the Open University. That will be a real challenge for today received nearly 1 million signatures, which proves universities in the coming years. It will cause a fall in how deeply parents, staff and, most crucially, students revenue and the Government will have to revisit some of are concerned about these various issues. the issues that we have raised today. Personally, although I heard what the Minister said, I I will end by thanking everybody who has taken am still concerned about the number of complaints that part in what has been a fantastic, measured and, at have come through, and I am really worried that the times, impassioned debate. I thank you all on behalf of system will positively groan under the weight of the the Petitions Committee. Finally, may I thank you, number of complaints that are bound to come. As I said Sir David, for your measured and fair chairmanship of in my speech, if complaints to the OIA go up by just the debate? 1%, that would be a tenfold increase. That would be a Question put and agreed to. real problem, so I hope that the Government will understand Resolved, it and develop policies to address it. That this House has considered e-petitions 300528, 302855, Ultimately, however, the problem we have is that 306494, 324762, and 552911, relating to university tuition fees. universities have marketed themselves over the years with an idealistic view of student life. Because of covid-19, 7.23 pm which is nobody’s fault, such an idealistic view can no Sitting adjourned. 1WS Written Statements 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Written Statements 2WS Written Statements EDUCATION University Admissions System Monday 16 November 2020 The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson): Today I want to update both Houses on policy developments for reform within the university admissions system. TREASURY On Friday 13 November,I announced the Department’s intention to explore a post-qualification admissions (PQA) system for higher education, where students would receive and accept offers after they have received Levelling up the Economy: Freeport Bidding Process their level 3 (A-level or equivalent) grades. The Government’smanifesto committed us to “improve the application and offer system” and in a way that is The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay): “underpinned by a commitment to fairness, quality of On 16 November, the Government launched the bidding learning and teaching, and access”. Evidence shows process for the allocation of freeports in England by that the current admissions system falls short of this publishing a bidding prospectus. The bidding period commitment, which is why we are now exploring how a will close on 5 February 2021. new system could work. We want to ensure the system works for disadvantaged students and facilitates the Leaving the EU creates new opportunities for the UK levelling up that we all want to see, so that everyone to strengthen the union and become a hub for international with the qualifications and ability to benefit from higher trade and investment. Revitalising our port regions education can do so, no matter what their background. through an ambitious freeport policy is a key component of realising this vision and unlocking the deep potential If we were starting from scratch today, no one would of all nations and regions of the UK. design the higher education admissions system we have now—a system which, with its reliance on predicted The creation of freeports will be a cornerstone of the grades, systematically favours the most advantaged. Government’s plan to level up opportunity across the While the higher education provider base has expanded country.Freeports will increase trade, create employment significantly in recent decades, with the emergence of and attract investment in order to form innovative new providers and courses, the admissions system has business clusters that benefit local areas. This in turn remained largely unchanged since the 1960s. The current will help rejuvenate left-behind communities across the system lacks transparency, and it works against the UK, by attracting new businesses,spreading jobs,investment interests of some students, notably high achieving and opportunity. disadvantaged students. In recent years we have also The bidding prospectus sets out how ports, businesses, seen the emergence of undesirable admissions practices, local government and other local partners can come such as the mass use of unconditional offers. together to bid for freeport status. We know, due to the pandemic, that students have experienced considerable disruption to their education At the centre of our new freeports policy is an this year. We believe that the unique set of circumstances ambitious new customs model which will improve upon students faced could have been better dealt with by a both the UK’s existing customs facilitations and the fairer higher education admissions system. freeports the UK previously had. Our freeports model A broad range of interested parties across the education also introduces a package of tax incentives for businesses system, and from across the political spectrum—including to invest in freeports, and seed funding to develop key the Sutton Trust, , and the University infrastructure to help level up some of our most deprived and College Union—have been calling for a post- communities. We are introducing new measures to speed qualification admissions system to support social mobility up planning processes to accelerate development in and and to remove the complexity and undesirable practices around freeports and new initiatives to encourage innovators of the current system. According to a recent poll by the to test new ideas to drive additional economic growth Sutton Trust, two thirds of this year’s university entrants and create jobs. (66%) are in favour of removing predicted grades from Freeports will be selected according to a fair,transparent university admissions and making decisions based on and competitive bidding process, and will be expected actual results. Universities UK has also confirmed its to collaborate closely with key partners across the public desire to work with the Government to explore moving and private sectors. to such a system. We want all the nations of the UK to share in the The Government will therefore consult universities, benefits of freeports.As such, we are working constructively colleges, schools, students, and other interested parties and collaboratively with the devolved Administrations to develop a potential model of reform over the coming to seek to establish at least one freeport in each nation months. We will work across the sectors to design a of the UK as soon as possible. more efficient and transparent system that helps all students, especially those who are disadvantaged, access The “Freeports bidding prospectus” CP315 has been the course and institution that best suits their aspirations laid in Parliament. Copies are available in the Vote Office and capabilities. This is a set of reforms we would look and Printed Paper Office, and also at: https://www.gov.uk/ to deliver during the course of this Parliament, but it government/publications/freeports-bidding-prospectus. will not affect students over the current academic year. [HCWS579] [HCWS580] 3WS Written Statements 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Written Statements 4WS

FOREIGN, COMMONWEALTH AND Kingdom Government. The project has released 23 million DEVELOPMENT OFFICE square meters of land, allowing public access to large areas of ground which had been out of bounds for almost four decades, including beauty spots close to Falkland Islands Demining Stanley. This means that the people of the Falkland Islands will no longer have to teach their children about the dangers of minefields. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, In 1997, the United Kingdom, alongside 121 other Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton): nations, signed the anti-personnel mine ban convention, On 14 November, the Falkland Islands were declared which prohibits the use, stockpiling, production and mine-free under the anti-personnel mine ban convention transfer of anti-personnel mines and commits signatories (the Ottawa convention); a major step forward for the to removing such mines from territories over which they islanders as they look forward to a peaceful future. This have jurisdiction or control. The completion of the project has taken more than 38 years after several demining project in the Falkland Islands marks the thousand land mines were laid during the Falklands United Kingdom’s fulfilment of its legal obligation conflict. The Government pay tribute to the members under this convention. Finishing three years ahead of of the British armed forces who contributed to mapping, the deadline of 31 March 2024, this achievement underlines fencing and clearing the mine fields between 1982 and the United Kingdom’s commitment to and leadership 2009, as well as the civilian deminers who between 2009 of global humanitarian mine action. and 2020 have destroyed over 10,000 mines and other [HCWS578] unexploded ordnance in a project funded by the United 1P Petitions 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Petitions 2P

As the Court of Appeal recently found in the case of Petition Delve and Glynn, successive Conservative, Labour, and Coalition Governments from 1995 onwards gave adequate Monday 16 November 2020 and reasonable notice about SPa Changes. Women were informed about the changes in their state pension age from 60 to 65. Between 2009 to 2018, letters were sent OBSERVATIONS to women affected by the equalisation to 65 and the rise to 66. Government also ran a number of campaigns to increase awareness of the changes and provide information WORK AND PENSIONS to support financial planning. A new website was also launched which set out the changes to state pension age The increase to the state pension age and provided guidance and information. Research has shown that 95% of women in 2010-11 were aware of The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow changes to their state pension age (Holman et al. 2020). East, Recent state pension reforms, including the introduction Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 of the new state pension, mean that over three million Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women stand to receive an average of £550 more per women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have year by 2030. Women have also benefited from the unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State expansion of automatic enrolment which was designed Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of specifically to help groups who historically have been women have had significant changes imposed on them less likely to save. Among private sector workers eligible with little or no personal notice; further that implementation for automatic enrolment, women are now equally as took place faster than promised; further that this gave likely to have a workplace pension as men: 86% had a no time to make alternative pension plans; further that workplace pension in 2019, equal to that of men. This is retirement plans have been shattered with devastating up from 40% in 2012. consequences; and further that the coronavirus pandemic Since April 2010, the full yearly amount of the basic and concomitant economic downturn has caused additional state pension has risen by over £1,900 in cash terms. hardship to many of the women who were previously In April 2020, full amounts of the basic and new state affected by these changes to the State Pension Age. pensions increased by 3.9%, in line with average earnings The petitioners therefore request that the House of growth. We have also acted quickly to protect pensioner Commons urge the Government to make fair transitional incomes further in light of there being no average arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or earnings growth in 2020, as a result of the current after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden volatile economic circumstances arising from the COVID of the increase to the State Pension Age. 19 pandemic. This would have meant that, without taking action, we would have been unable to increase And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Official Report, state pensions in 2021-22. So we have introduced an 15 September 2020, Vol. 680, c. 281.] Uprating Bill to ensure we can increase state pension [P002598] and pension credit rates for 2021-22. Without this legislation, Observations from the Secretary of State for Work and that would not have been possible. Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey): Pension credit continues to provide an important In 1995, after two years of debate in Parliament and safety-net for pensioners on low incomes. Wealso support following public consultation, the Government brought older people through further measures, including the in a law to equalise men and women’s state pension age provision of free bus passes, free prescriptions, Winter (SPa). This increased the earliest age when a woman Fuel Payments and Cold Weather Payments. could claim state pension from 60 to 65. The Government are also actively encouraging everyone The state pension age timetable increasing state pension to take steps to prepare financially for later life. Since age for both men and women to age 66, 67 and 68 was 2000, people have been able to request a personalised set out in the 2007 Pensions Act, and the timetable for state pension statement setting out their current state rises to age 66 and 67 was brought forward by the 2011 pension age and forecasting their future entitlement. and 2014 Pension Acts. During the passage of the Between April 2000 and September 2020, DWP has 2011 Act, Parliament legislated for a concession, worth provided more than 37.9 million such statements to £1.1 billion in 2011-12 prices, that meant that no woman people who have requested them. In 2016 the ‘Check would see her pension age change by more than 18 months, your State Pension Forecast’ service was introduced, relative to the original 1995 Act timetable. allowing individuals to check their state pension forecast Changes to state pension age were fully debated when online. Of the 37.9 million statements issued, 23.4 million the 1995, 2007, 2011 and 2014 Pensions Bills were have been issued digitally through the Check Your State before Parliament. Government also committed in the Pension Forecast service. The Department also set up 2014 Pensions Act to undertake a review of state pension the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS) in February age every six years to consider the appropriateness of 2019, an arm’s length body sponsored by DWP. MaPS the state pension age rules. The first review was published brings together three respected financial guidance bodies; in 2017 and the statutory deadline for the publication of the Money Advice Service, The Pensions Advisory Service the next review is 2023. Government stated in the 2017 and Pension Wise. In addition to other advice, MaPS Review of State Pension age that this will evaluate also offers a mid-life MOT for self- employed people to increases in state pension age to date, including the rise review their health, skills and finances in order to better to 65 for women and increase to 66 for both men prepare for the future they want. Overall, MaPs delivered and women. over 1.2 million advice sessions in 2019-2020. 3P Petitions 16 NOVEMBER 2020 Petitions 4P

We have no intention of reversing changes to state increase. We provide support to help older people stay pension age. It would be neither affordable nor fair to in and return to work. For those who cannot work, our future generations to do so. The latest Office for National welfare system continues to provide a strong safety net. Statistics ‘cohort’ life expectancy projections show that Government are determined to ensure that the state life expectancy is increasing, all be it at a slower rate. pension system is fair to future generations, is sustainable Furthermore, the proportion of people over SPa compared and that people have certainty about when they can to the number of people of working age is projected to expect to receive their state pension. 1MC Ministerial Corrections16 NOVEMBER 2020 Ministerial Corrections 2MC Ministerial Correction [Official Report, 19 October 2020, Vol. 682, c. 753.] Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Monday 16 November 2020 Coastal (Dr Coffey). An error has been identified in the response I gave to WORK AND PENSIONS my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst Topical Questions (Sir Robert Neill) The following is an extract from Work and Pensions The correct response should have been. topical questions on 19 October 2020. Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): A Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): A number of my constituents are receiving letters out of number of my constituents are receiving letters out of the blue saying that the Child Maintenance Service is the blue saying that the Child Maintenance Service is writing off unpaid payments as part of a review of writing off unpaid payments as part of a review of historical debt. Will my right hon. Friend tell me the historical debt. Will my right hon. Friend tell me the basis for the review, what the criteria are for the cases, basis for the review, what the criteria are for the cases, how many are involved, and by what means personal how many are involved, and by what means personal advance notice of the changes is being given to the advance notice of the changes is being given to the people concerned? people concerned? Dr Coffey: My understanding is that the policy relates Dr Coffey: My understanding is that the policy relates to people who have had child maintenance arrangements to people who have had child maintenance arrangements for a very long time. There comes a point when there is for a very long time. There comes a point when there is an element of understanding the different debts. My an element of understanding the different debts. My hon. Friend will be aware that, in a way, this is a very hon. Friend will be aware that, in a way, this is a very odd arrangement, with the state effectively becoming odd arrangement, with the state effectively becoming the arbiter between two parents. The only people who the arbiter between two parents. The only people who lose are the children. That is why I encourage everybody lose are the children. That is why I encourage everybody who has a responsibility towards their children—currently who has a responsibility towards their children—as of 111,000 children are owed £187 million by parents who the end of June 2020, £362 million in unpaid maintenance refuse to pay up—to get on and do the right thing by was owed by parents—to get on and do the right thing them. We should not end up having to rely on the state by them. We should not end up having to rely on the to arbitrate between two parents. state to arbitrate between two parents.

ORAL ANSWERS

Monday 16 November 2020

Col. No. Col. No. HOUSING, COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL HOUSING, COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT...... 1 GOVERNMENT—continued Affordable Housing...... 13 Places of Worship: Covid-19...... 4 Buckinghamshire Council: Devolution Proposals .. 5 Regional Inequality...... 6 Building Safety Programme ...... 11 Rough Sleepers: Accommodation ...... 3 Covid-19: Local Authority Support ...... 13 Stronger Towns Fund...... 10 Covid-19 Lockdown: Local Authority Support...... 12 Topical Questions ...... 15 Dangerous Cladding: Leaseholder Support ...... 9 Town Regeneration ...... 7 Disused Coal Tips: Safety and Stability ...... 11 Towns Fund ...... 14 Domestic Abuse...... 1 Traveller Communities: Planning Policy...... 14 WRITTEN STATEMENTS

Monday 16 November 2020

Col. No. Col. No. EDUCATION...... 2WS TREASURY ...... 1WS University Admissions System ...... 2WS Levelling up the Economy: Freeport Bidding Process...... 1WS FOREIGN, COMMONWEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE...... 3WS Falkland Islands Demining...... 3WS PETITION

Monday 16 November 2020

Col. No. Col. No. WORK AND PENSIONS...... 1P The increase to the state pension age...... 1P MINISTERIAL CORRECTION

Monday 16 November 2020

Col. No. WORK AND PENSIONS ...... 1MC Topical Questions ...... 1MC No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the Bound Volume should be clearly marked on a copy of the daily Hansard - not telephoned - and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than Monday 23 November 2020

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF BOUND VOLUMES

Members may obtain excerpts of their speeches from the Official Report (within one month from the date of publication), by applying to the Editor of the Official Report, House of Commons. Volume 684 Monday No. 135 16 November 2020

CONTENTS

Monday 16 November 2020

List of Government and Principal Officers and Officials of the House

Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 1] [see index inside back page] Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

Participation in Debates [Col. 24] Answer to urgent question—(Mr Rees-Mogg)

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] [Col. 55] As amended, considered Read the Third time and passed

Petition [Col. 138]

Leaseholders and Cladding: Greenwich and Woolwich [Col. 139] Debate on motion for Adjournment

Westminster Hall Trade Deals and the NHS [Col. 1WH] Tuition Fees [Col. 25WH] Debates on e-petitions

Written Statements [Col. 1WS]

Petition [Col. 1P] Observations

Ministerial Correction [Col. 1MC]

Written Answers to Questions [The written answers can now be found at http://www.parliament.uk/writtenanswers]