Tag: 2023

Ian Bauckham – 2023 Speech at the Sixth Form Colleges Association Winter Conference
The speech made by Sir Ian Bauckham, the Chair of Ofqual, on 18 January 2023.

Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to be with you this afternoon as Chair of Ofqual. Unfortunately, the Chief Regulator is unable to be with us today, which I know she very much regrets. She spoke to your winter conference last year in remote format, but it’s obviously much better to be here face to face and talk in person.

And what a difference a year makes. Last year saw the very welcome return of a normal series of examinations and formal assessments, or nearly normal. Thank you for everything you did to enable those to run smoothly in your colleges. I know it wasn’t always easy but we had a really good outcome for young people, nonetheless.

I will be saying something later on exams this summer, but I wanted to start with what is happening on the review of level 3 qualifications, including, for example, courses like BTECs at level 3, but also the whole range of alternative academic and technical qualifications at level 3.

I know that there are questions and potentially some concerns about what is happening, including the approval process for continued funding, and why all this is happening, so I thought it might be helpful for me to offer a brief overview.

Aside from a small number of exceptions, all level 3 alternative academic and technical qualifications (qualifications at level 3 which are not T Levels or A levels, like for example level 3 BTECS, alongside many others) are being required to re-apply for funding as part of a government-led streamlining programme for these qualifications.

The government’s aim for this exercise is in essence threefold:
- firstly, to simplify the landscape, including addressing what is seen as in some cases unnecessary duplication where that exists
- to drive up the quality of qualifications and the assessment that underpins them
- and to ensure that appropriate priority is given to T Levels and their place in the landscape
These alternative and technical qualifications constitute a large and complex area in comparison, say, with A levels and T Levels. For example, there are more than 60 awarding organisations offering the qualifications that are in scope, and several thousand different level 3 qualifications in the alternative academic and technical space.

Some of these are large entry and well known to you in your colleges, and some, of course, are very small in terms of entry, and not likely to be on your radar as college leaders.

Last week the government published details of their new qualifications funding approval process for qualifications at level 3. Talking to your colleagues, I know that that is under scrutiny by your representatives and I am sure debate will continue. What the document sets out to do is bring clarity on what type of L3 qualifications are likely to be publicly funded alongside A levels and T Levels, and bring clarity on the timescales.

I recommend that you take a look at this for more detailed information. I believe the Department for Education will be running some webinars to look at some of this in more detail, which may be useful for colleagues here as well.

As part of the process that awarding organisations are going through, re-applying for funding, we, Ofqual, are contributing by providing qualitative feedback to the DfE on each qualification where funding is being reapplied for, as well as on the awarding organisation itself.

This means that these qualifications are coming under much greater individual regulatory scrutiny than has been the case up to now. Ofqual has put in place a range of higher expectations relating to quality that we expect awarding organisations to meet in their reapplications. It is against those expectations that we provide our qualitative feedback to the DfE and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE).

As the process plays out, the DfE is taking decisions on funding for the reapplications it receives taking into consideration the quality-based advice Ofqual provides, as well as the contribution of IfATE, that represents the employer voice.

It is probably important to flag that the government absolutely recognises that, alongside the aim of simplifying the landscape, there will, in the future, still need to be a range of qualifications at L3 available alongside A levels and T Levels.

For many students these qualifications are important, not only as vehicles for their continued education and engagement in education, but also because they provide important routes for further study or employment. So there will likely be many decisions to approve applications for funding, alongside decisions not to continue to fund.

You might be wondering what this means for you as a college leader.

In short, unless you are a college which offers only A levels and GCSEs, or T Levels, it is almost certain you will be offering some of these qualifications, maybe for example level 3 BTECs or equivalent.

It is also at least possible that the government will determine that some of those qualifications do not meet the criteria for continued funding, which may mean you will need to take decisions about changing the portfolio of courses you provide in the interests of your students to reflect what is available and funded in the future. So following this process, including through your representatives in this association, to make sure that you are up to speed with decisions being taken is critically important. I am sure you will also continue to make your views heard.

Grading in 2023

Moving on now, I will now say something about arrangements for grading GCSEs, AS and A levels in 2023. We published our plans back in September so that higher education institutions could factor in decisions that were being made about grading before they embarked on their offer-making, and of course because some of you will have been arriving at UCAS predictions for students. We felt it was important you had as much information as possible before you started that process. Our plans for 2023 take us a step further on the road to normality, building on what happened in 2022, while also recognising the impact of the pandemic.

You will recall that in summer 2022, we aimed for a staging post on the way back to more normal grading. In 2023, we will return to pre-pandemic grading, but with some protection in place for your students, a soft landing, if you like.

Students in the 2023 cohort have not, during their exam courses, experienced the level of national school or college closures experienced by students in the 2 years before them. But I know, from listening to teachers, college leaders and students themselves, that many have certainly experienced some level of disruption.

So, to achieve that extra bit of protection, Ofqual will put in place the same sort of safeguards used for the first students taking reformed GCSEs and A levels from 2017 onwards.

Back in the reform context, that meant not disadvantaging students in the first cohorts if overall they performed less well because they were the first to sit the new exams.

So how will it work this summer? In practice, as in any year, grade boundaries for every specification will be set by senior examiners after they have reviewed the work produced by students in their exams.

But those senior examiners will be guided in their decisions about where to set grade boundaries by information about the grades achieved in pre-pandemic years, along with prior attainment data for the cohort.

So that means students in 2023 will be protected in grading terms if their examination performance in 2023 is a little lower than it might have been had the pandemic not taken place. That is what I mean by a soft landing.

What that means is, a typical student who would have achieved an A grade in their A level geography before the pandemic will be just as likely to get an A in summer 2023, even if their performance in the assessments is a little weaker in 2023 than it might have been before the pandemic.

We expect that overall results in summer 2023 will be much closer to the pre-pandemic years than results since 2020. In other words, we expect that overall, nationally, results in 2023 will be lower than they were in 2022.

Individual providers, including colleges and schools, should be prepared for this. I know, as a school leader myself, it’s worrying if you look at figures that are lower than the previous year.

It’s important that we don’t compare the results in 2022 with any other year. Lower results in 2023 compared with 2022 will not mean, by itself, that your college’s performance has fallen. It will be much more likely to reflect the return nationally to normal grading standards.

It is important to note that, while we aim to return pretty much to normal grading in 2023, this does not mean there is any nationally pre-determined ‘quota’ of grades. Every set of grade boundaries, qualification by qualification, is determined by human, senior examiners, taking account of all the information they have available, including actual student performance.

I did want to sound one note of caution: if you are using summer or autumn 2022 papers as mock or trial exams, the grade boundaries set for those papers are likely to be more generous, reflecting the approach we took in 2022, both summer and autumn. Do bear that in mind if you are using the results from mocks to give indicative grades for students being examined this year.

For vocational and technical qualifications (VTQs) taken alongside or instead of GCSEs and A levels, awarding organisations are expected to take account of the grading approach being used in GCSEs and A levels. So for VTQ qualifications certificating in 2023, this also means a return to normal grading arrangements.

And a word about universities and higher education: decisions about grading by themselves have no effect on the number of higher education places available. That is determined by other factors and has got nothing to do with grading decisions.

Universities themselves will take account of how exams will be graded when they make their offers, including any differences between the 4 nations of the UK (which already exist). Universities are well-experienced in factoring those in to their offering arrangements.

UCAS wrote out to all schools just after Ofqual announced our grading decision, to explain how offers will be made this year, and to confirm that universities would take our grading decision into account. The Chief Regulator also wrote to admissions officers just before Christmas.

Formulae/equation sheets, MFL and resilience

Further points on 2023: there are one or two changes to support students taking GCSEs. Students will be given formulae sheets for GCSE maths and revised equation sheets for GCSE physics and combined science, which we did in 2022 for those GCSEs. This will give some additional reassurance to GCSE students in the exam itself.

And for modern foreign languages GCSEs, Ofqual’s changed requirements mean that exams do not have to test unfamiliar vocabulary. That’s to make it feel a bit more accessible for students this year.

Delivering exams

Turning now to resilience, the arrangements in place should the unthinkable happen in summer 2023. Clearly the closer we get to the summer, the less likely that becomes, but we’ve all learned to be cautious in how we predict the future. In November, Ofqual and the DfE jointly published guidance on resilience, in the very unlikely event that exams are not able to go ahead as planned. Some colleges may be running mock exams now and I know this is a big operation, particularly in colleges such as yours with large cohorts of students. You are also, simultaneously, preparing students to take their end of year exams. Ofqual was conscious of this when we published the guidance.

The thrust of that guidance, designed to minimise the burden on you and your students, is that any assessment opportunities you plan should be in line with your normal approaches, as far as possible.

As well as all the work you do to prepare your students to take their assessments through your teaching and learning, we know that the administration and delivery of exams is something you take seriously. We take our hats off to people in colleges leading the examinations operation.

It is enormously complex, but there is training and support available, and I encourage you to make sure those who are charged with doing this work get access to the range of training available for them so they can benefit from it and deliver as well as possible on behalf of students.

If you’ve looked at the GCSE and A level exam timetables for next year, you’ll see there are some changes from 2022.

The Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) listened to feedback about the spacing between exams in the same subject in summer 2022. They have taken this on board for 2023.

They will largely be preserving those gaps, to reduce the risk of students missing all exams in a subject, but the spacing between some papers is slightly less next summer.

I did just want to draw your attention to the contingency days that they have built in. Both the 8 and 15 June will be ‘contingency afternoons’ and the 28 June will be a contingency day in case there is national or local disruption that would mean exams had to be re-scheduled.

Do please let your students know about this and remind them that they might have to be available on those dates. It’s particularly important for them to be aware if they are planning holidays.

There are more details on the JCQ website, and a quick plug for Ofqual’s resources as well: every year we provide a guide for students and a guide for schools and colleges. These will be published in the spring, and always live somewhere central on our website. I hope you’ll be able to point your students to them.

Vocational and technical qualification results in 2023

And finally, just as Ofqual regulates in the interests of students of all ages and apprentices, we are also convinced of the need for parity of treatment for students across the different sorts of qualifications your colleges provide, whether vocational or academic.

So I wanted to reassure you that we have in train a series of actions to prevent a repeat of the delayed results in vocational and technical qualifications that we saw last August. I know this affected some of you and your students.

We were shocked by what became apparent in August. Not only that around 20,000 students from 1,550 centres had delayed results, but that for some time, there hadn’t been a single date by which VTQ students could expect results – even when they were used for progression. That is not acceptable and Ofqual will work with the sector to fix this, not just for this summer, but for the long term and in the interests of being fair to students taking these qualifications.

Our investigation of the awarding organisations involved continues, as does our review of the extent of the problem. We will consider whether enforcement action is appropriate after that concludes.

In December, we published the 5 key actions that Ofqual, working with you and others in the sector, will deliver.

These actions cover a range of areas, and there isn’t time to cover them in detail here. They include putting in place clear deadlines, improving data sharing, introducing check-ins for colleges and awarding organisations, improving information accessibility about these qualifications, improving communications from awarding organisations to centres, improving training for staff running exams, and monitoring the implementation of all this via a joint taskforce from around the sector chaired by the Chief Regulator.

We are certain that taken together these actions will to a very significant extent address the issues we saw playing out this summer (and which to a greater or lesser extent have been endemic in the system).

Thank you very much for your attention – I think we still have a few moments for any questions.
January 19, 2023
PRESS RELEASE : Missile defence agreement with British industry updated [January 2023]

The press release issued by the Ministry of Defence on 19 January 2023.

A Ministry of Defence agreement with British industry has been refreshed to formalise important work taking place regarding missile defence.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is being updated to formally recognise Fluid Gravity Engineering Ltd and Airbus Defence and Space Ltd as industry partners to the UK Missile Defence Centre (MDC).

The MDC was established in 2003 as a government-industry partnership to deliver science and technology research across all areas of Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD). More recently, their remit has expanded to include advanced missile threats, including hypersonics. The unique relationship enshrined in the MOU enables the MDC to respond rapidly to technology and geopolitical developments, with clear benefits for MOD and UK industry.

The partnership supports closer working relations and open communication between and within MOD and industry to enhance planning, increase understanding of threats and defensive architectures, and develop defensive technologies for the UK and our allies.

MOD Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Dame Angela McLean, said:
These organisations bring unique expertise to the table, helping strengthen the UK’s missile defence supplier base at a time when threats are developing more rapidly than ever.

The new partners will ensure the MDC remains at the cutting-edge of missile defence science and technology as it seeks to deliver robust capability options for our Armed Forces.

This agreement is intended to promote and support interaction between the MOD and industry organisations to ensure the MDC is the centre of excellence for missile defence within the UK. By drawing upon the most relevant expertise, the MOD will further enhance its understanding of missile defence and be well-positioned to support current or future procurement programmes.

The activities of the MDC, supported by an underpinning research programme, ensure the provision of evidence to decision makers, collaboration on projects of mutual interest with international partners, and sustainment of elements of national expertise.

January 19, 2023
PRESS RELEASE : Rishi Sunak call with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel [January 2023]

The press release issued by 10 Downing Street on 19 January 2023.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this morning to congratulate him on his re-appointment.

The Prime Minister spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this morning to congratulate him on his re-appointment.

The leaders looked forward to working together to advance the UK-Israel relationship, including on trade where the UK is already Israel’s most important partner in Europe. They agreed the UK-Israel Free Trade Agreement, currently being negotiated, could unlock further opportunities for both our countries, building on our shared leadership in areas like technology and services.

The Prime Minister and Prime Minister Netanyahu also discussed cooperation between the UK and Israel on security issues, where both countries have an interest in promoting regional stability.

The Prime Minister outlined the steps the UK has taken to respond to abuses of human rights and breaches of international law by the Iranian regime, including sanctioning Iran for illegally supplying military drones to Russia. The Prime Minister thanked Prime Minister Netanyahu for his support to Ukraine.

The Prime Minister reaffirmed the UK’s longstanding position on the Middle East Peace Process. The leaders agreed that the Abraham Accords had the potential to bring about a permanent step change in relations between Israel and its neighbours, with far reaching benefits.

The leaders looked forward to meeting in person soon and to marking Israel’s 75th anniversary later this year.

January 19, 2023
PRESS RELEASE : Harry McCusker, who supplied dozens of kilograms of cocaine across South England has received an increased prison sentence [January 2023]

The press release issued by the Attorney General’s Office on 19 January 2023.

A cocaine dealer who conspired with others to supply large quantities of the class A drug across the south of England will spend extra time in prison after his original sentence was found to be unduly lenient.

Harry McCusker, 28, of Middlesex, worked as part of a large-scale operation to supply cocaine across the south of England. During the operation, McCusker and other conspirators would receive up to 20kg of cocaine at a time before distributing the class A drug across areas including London, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall.

As part of the sophisticated operation, substantial quantities of money were laundered, leading to McCusker also being convicted of conspiracy to convert criminal property.

On 28 October 2022, at Lewes Crown Court, McCusker was sentenced to 4 years and 9 months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to supply a class A drug and conspiracy to convert criminal property.

His sentence was then referred to the Court of Appeal as Unduly Lenient.

On 19 January 2023 the Court quashed McCusker’s original sentence, and he will now have to serve a sentence of 6 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

Speaking after the hearing, the Solicitor General Michael Tomlinson MP said:

“Harry McCusker was directly involved in a wide-scale operation to supply enormous quantities of a dangerous, harmful and illegal class A drug. I hope that the increased sentence handed down by the Court today will send the message that no amount of money offered for dealing drugs will ever be worth the punishment.”

January 19, 2023
Nusrat Ghani – 2023 Statement on EU Retained Law

The statement made by Nusrat Ghani, the Minister for Industry and Investment Security, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

It is a pleasure to be here, and I thank all Members who have tabled new amendments and new clauses and who will speak in the debate. I also thank the members of the Public Bill Committee for their work.

I will address the Government new clauses and amendments first, but I will say more about them in my closing speech when other Members have had a chance to contribute. I will also address some of the concerns that have been raised, and some of the misinformation about the Bill.

The Government new clauses and amendments are minor and technical. They cover four areas. The first is updating the definition of “assimilated law” and how it should be interpreted, and, in the case law provisions, ensuring that the High Court of Justiciary is covered in all instances. I thank the Scottish Government for their engagement: there has been engagement between our officials and those in the Scottish Government, and with the Advocate General. Our new clauses also clarify the fact that the use of extension power also applies to amendments to retained EU law made between the extension regulations and the sunset, and clarify the application of clause 14 to codification as well as restatement. These are technical drafting measures, and I ask the House to support them.

Let me now explain why the Bill is crucial for the UK. My explanation will directly cover many of the new clauses and amendments. The Bill will end the special status of retained EU law on the UK statute book by the end of 2023. It constitutes a process. Considerable work has been done with officials across Whitehall and with the devolved authorities; that work has been proportionate, and has been taking place for over 18 months. I cannot stress enough the importance of achieving the 2023 deadline. Retained EU law was never intended to sit on the statute book indefinitely. It is constitutionally undesirable, as some domestic laws, including Acts of Parliament, currently remain subordinate to some retained EU law. The continued existence on our statute book of the principle of supremacy of EU law is just not right, as we are a sovereign nation with a sovereign Parliament.

Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

We all accept that the status of EU law must change and that it will have to be reassimilated into domestic law in due course. No one argues with that. Will the Minister not reflect that it is constitutionally unacceptable to create what the Law Society—which might know a little more about the law than politicians and civil servants—described as a “devastating impact” on legal certainty and business confidence? To do so by means of Henry VIII powers so wide that all scrutiny is, in effect, removed from this House is not taking backing control but doing the reverse of what the Government seek to do.

Ms Ghani

I always respect my hon. Friend’s opinion, but he is fundamentally mistaken. We have undertaken a considerable amount of consultation with our courts and have worked with them consistently. It is absolutely right that we deliver Brexit by ensuring that laws made here are sovereign over EU laws.

Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) is fundamentally wrong. The Bill is providing legal certainty. Rather than having a flow of EU law interpreted according to EU principle, from now on we will have a single set of laws within this country. That must be certainty rather than otherwise.

Ms Ghani

Having a single set of laws across the UK will provide far more certainty.

Several hon. Members rose—

Ms Ghani

Before I take any more interventions, I want to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about the Henry VIII powers. That is a misrepresentation of what is happening. Each Department will review and then amend, assimilate or revoke EU law. Each Department’s Secretary of State will be responsible for the decisions they take. All the laws are on the dashboard, which will be updated once again, and we will be codifying the retained EU law. In the absence of the application of supremacy, restating a rule in primary legislation could lead to the same policy effect as the rule itself currently has. The Bill just sets out a process to allow each Department to take a decision. Why would we not want to review the EU law that is out there and assess what needs to be assimilated? If we can amend and update it, why would we not do that?

Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

Notwithstanding the charmingly innocent faith in lawyers of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the key thing about our decision to leave the European Union is that sovereignty lies in this place and with the people to whom we are accountable. The point about this measure is that it will allow exactly that sovereignty to be exacted in practice with regard to retained EU law.

Ms Ghani

Absolutely. When decisions are taken either to amend or to revoke, the usual channels will be followed in Parliament. Committees will be put in place and decisions will be reviewed the Leaders of both Houses. Decisions can be taken openly and transparently. We also have the dashboard, which will be updated and already has thousands of EU laws on it.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)

The Minister is right that the whole point of Brexit was to take control of our own laws. She is also right that there needs to be a single set of laws across the United Kingdom. But the Bill makes it clear that we will not have a single set of laws across the United Kingdom, because a wide range of laws in Northern Ireland are exempt from the provisions of the Bill. Furthermore, in future when EU law changes and applies in Northern Ireland, the gap between the laws in the rest of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland will get ever wider. Does she accept that unless the protocol is dealt with, there is a real danger that Northern Ireland will be treated differently and be constitutionally separated from the United Kingdom?

Ms Ghani

My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue. As it is sensitive, he must allow me a moment to ensure that my response is accurate. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations, including the Northern Ireland protocol and the trade and co-operation agreement after the sunset date. The Bill will not alter the rights of EU nations that are protected, or eligible to be protected, by the relevant provisions in the Northern Ireland protocol. The Bill contains provisions that, when exercised appropriately, will ensure the continued implementation of our international obligations, including the Northern Ireland protocol.

It is our preference to resolve the Northern Ireland protocol issue through talks. The Government are engaging in constructive dialogue with the EU to find solutions to these problems. I must put on record that officials have been working with officials in Northern Ireland for the last 18 months. We know how important and sensitive this issue is.

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) rose—

Ms Ghani

I will just make a little progress before I take more interventions.

I cannot stress enough the importance of achieving the deadline. The retained EU law was never intended to sit on the statute books indefinitely. On 31 January last year the Government announced plans to bring forward the Bill, which is the culmination of the Government’s work to untangle ourselves from decades of EU membership. It will permit the creation of a more agile, innovative and UK-specific regulatory approach, benefiting people and businesses across the UK.

It is a priority of the Government that the United Kingdom will be the best place to start and grow a business. The Bill contains powers that will allow us to make good on that promise. It will allow outdated and often undemocratic retained EU law to be amended, repealed or replaced more quickly and easily than before. It will remove burdens on business and create a more agile and sustainable legislative framework to boost economic growth.

Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)

I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember being on the Back Benches and sitting in statutory instrument Committees in which we had no ability whatsoever to change the legislation going through, because it was driven by the European Union. This is about taking back control by giving democratic authority to this place. Furthermore, on things such as maternity leave, minimum wage, annual leave, product safety and international regulations we are already doing better than the EU minimum standards. This Government will promise to keep those standards and, in many cases, increase them.

Ms Ghani

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a lot of misinformation about the environment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed to maintain or enhance standards. He is right that we had very little say over positions taken in Brussels, but now, in the Bill, those decisions are taken by the devolved authorities. That will remain devolved and they will have a say, so why would they want to give away that power?

Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)

The Minister spoke of taking back control, but the harsh reality is that the Government are taking back control from the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday we heard about the UK Government enacting section 35 to strike out a Bill of the Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Act 2016 contains the Sewel convention, which requires the UK Government to obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament when they are acting in devolved matters. The Scottish Government are not giving their consent. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Why should the Scottish Government not have the right to veto this Bill, which tramples over devolution and our laws in a way that we do not consent to?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)

Order. Could I gently say to the Minister that in order to facilitate Hansard and hon. Members seeking to hear, it would be helpful if she could address the microphone rather than the Back Benches?

Ms Ghani

My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The question is, why would the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) not take the power that the Scottish Government will be given through this Bill when it comes to devolved matters, to look at the EU laws and see whether they want to maintain them or enhance them for their own people? Why would they want to reject the power that they have been offered through this Bill? We remain fully committed to the Sewel convention. It is an essential element of the devolution settlement. The UK Government continue to seek legislative consent for Bills that interact with devolution. The right hon. Member’s argument does not make any sense. My worry is that Scottish Government do not want the powers because then they will have to exercise them. I know it is a little bit of work, but it is worth doing.

This Bill provides the opportunity to improve the competitiveness of the UK economy while maintaining high standards. It will ensure that the Government can more easily amend, revoke or replace retained EU law, so that the Government can create legislation that better suits the UK. This programme of reform must be done. The people of the UK did not vote for Brexit with the expectation that nearly a decade later, politicians in Westminster would continually rehash old and settled arguments, as those on the Opposition Benches so love to do. We must push on and seize the opportunities that Brexit provides. That will ensure that our economy is dynamic and agile and can support advances in technology and science.

Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)

On agility, the Minister will know that the majority of the thousands of rules that need to be changed are in the environmental area. Does she think it is a good idea that civil servants are completely distracted and focused on the changes to these rules when we have one in four people in food poverty, 63,000 people dying a year due to poor air quality, sewage pouring into our seas and crabs dying off the north-east coast? Would it not be better if the civil servants and the Government tackled those problems rather than going down a rabbit hole and inventing worse standards than the EU, such as trying to get to World Health Organisation air quality standards by 2040, which the EU is trying to get to by 2030?

Ms Ghani

I think many people coming into the debate today think that this is the start of something, but this process has been in place for more than 18 months, and DEFRA has committed to maintain or enhance standards. The constant misinformation given out over what is happening on the environment is simply incorrect. DEFRA has already taken decisive action to reform areas of retained EU law and it already has flagship legislation on our statute book, including the Environment Act 2021, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Agriculture Act 2020, all on powers that the SNP wants to give back to Brussels. The Environment Act strengthens our environmental protections while respecting our international obligations. It is simply incorrect to suggest that the Government will be weakening any of those protections. The Environment Act has set new legally binding targets, including to halt and reverse nature’s decline. Those targets, with oversight from the Office for Environmental Protection, will ensure that any reform to retained EU law delivers positive environmental outcomes. DEFRA will also conduct proportionate analysis of the expected impacts, so it is absolutely incorrect to misrepresent this Bill.

Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)

The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge) talked about statutory instrument Committees. I think all of us have sat on statutory instrument Committees, where we know that it is a question of like it or lump it when it comes to what is being proposed. Under this Bill, Ministers will have powers over key issues that our constituents care about. The Minister talks about the dashboard and admits that it still needs to be updated. As a matter of good democratic practice, will she give us, here and now, today, the exact number of laws covered by this Bill, so Members of this House can at least have some sense of the task that they are voting for? If she cannot tell us how many laws are covered, it is definitely not clear to us how any of us can influence them.

Ms Ghani

The hon. Member was very astute in Committee, and we spent many hours together discussing this. The dashboard is public. It has had more than 100,000 views to date. I was on it only last night. It has thousands of laws on it, and it will be updated again this month. There is a process within each Department, which is why a unit has been established to work with each Department across Whitehall. Every EU law that is identified will be put on the dashboard. So it is public, it is accessible, and all the information is out there.

I must just respond to another point that the hon. Member raised, once again, about scrutiny in this place, because it is being misrepresented—[Interruption.] Unfortunately, it is. The Bill will follow the usual channels for when laws are being either amended or revoked. The Leaders of the two Houses will meet and the business managers will take a decision. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords has already said that it is comfortable with the way the Bill will progress and the laws will be scrutinised, and the European Statutory Instruments Committee has said that it is comfortable with the way the laws will be scrutinised and assessed. So there is a process in place, as there was for a no-deal Brexit. The crunch is: if you do not like Brexit and if you did not like the way the Brexit vote that took place, you are not going to like any elements of this Bill.

Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)

Just before that intervention, the Minister was talking about the environment. Is it not the case that Members on this side of the House have delivered the Environment Act, that we are perfectly capable of making our own laws and delivering for the British people and that we do not need guidance from the European Union, unlike those on the Opposition Benches?

Ms Ghani

Absolutely. We on this side of the House have done a tremendous amount of work that did not require us to be directed by bureaucrats in Brussels. This gives me a great opportunity to point out all the fantastic work that we have achieved.

First of all, I must just say again that we will be maintaining and enhancing environmental standards. I want to touch on a list of things that we have achieved, especially on animal welfare, which has been a huge priority for Government Members. We have had the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. Since 2010, we have had new regulations on minimum standards for meat and chickens, banned the use of conventional battery cages for laying hens, made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses in England, made microchipping mandatory for dogs in 2015, modernised our licensing system for a range of activities such as dog breeding and pet sales, protected service animals via Finn’s law, banned the commercial third-party sale of puppies and kittens via Lucy’s law, passed the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 and led work to implement humane trapping standards. Our Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill will further the rights of animals outside the EU, including the banning of export of live animals for slaughter and fattening. It is remarkable how much we can achieve when we are left to our own devices.

Caroline Lucas rose—

Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) rose—

Ms Ghani

I will just make a little bit of progress.

As I have said, the sunset clause is necessary and is the quickest and most effective way to pursue retained EU law reform. It is only right to set the sunset and the revocation of inherited EU laws as the default position. It ensures that we are proactively choosing to preserve EU laws only when they are in the best interests of the UK. It ensures that outdated and unneeded laws are quickly and easily repealed. It will also give the Government a clear timeline in which to finish the most important tasks. Some retained EU laws are legally inoperable, and removing them from the statute book easily is good democratic governance. Requiring the Government to undergo complex and unnecessary parliamentary processes to remove retained EU law that is no longer necessary or operable, and can more easily be removed, is not good governance.

Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)

Surely parliamentary sovereignty is giving Members of Parliament control, not the Executive or bureaucrats in Whitehall.

Ms Ghani

The reality is that Ministers take decisions all the time, and there is a process in place where laws are amended or updated if there is a significant policy change. The same policy process will be in place. If the hon. Member is not comfortable with Conservative Ministers taking those decisions or with the SI process that is already in place, fundamentally he is just not comfortable with the decisions we are taking because we are taking these rules from Europe and placing them here on our UK statute book. That is a different argument altogether.

Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)

I want to react to what I think I heard the Minister saying when she suggested that those of us who did not support Brexit in the referendum would not support this Bill. That is not the case. As someone who did not vote for Brexit but who absolutely recognises that democratic choice and respects the referendum, I do support the premise of the Bill. We need to look at the EU law, although there are elements of the Bill we could improve on to give some certainty, and I hope that I will be called to speak later.

Ms Ghani

I would not want to misrepresent my right hon. Friend’s position. The point I was making was that Opposition Members who have complained about the Bill have a particular position that has been long held because of the outcome of the vote that took place.

We believe it is right that the public should know how much legislation there is derived from the EU, and know about the progress the Government are making. For that reason, we have published a public dashboard—perhaps colleagues would like to go on to the site for a moment—containing a list of UK Government retained EU law. The site will also document the Government’s progress on reforming retained EU law and will be updated regularly to reflect plans and actions taken. It will be updated again this month. I was slightly inaccurate earlier: there have in fact been 148,727 visitors to that site. It is not as if people are in the dark. There are many opportunities to be aware of what we are doing.

Caroline Lucas rose—

Ms Ghani

I will give way to the hon. Lady because she has been so patient.

Caroline Lucas

I am grateful to the Minister for finally giving way. She is suggesting that those of us who oppose the Bill are opposing it for some kind of ideological reason. I draw her attention to the words of the chair of the Office for Environmental Protection, who herself said:

“Worryingly, the Bill does not offer any safety net, there is no requirement to maintain existing levels of environmental protection”.

Not only that, there is actually a requirement not to go on and make the legislation stronger. That is written into the Bill.

On the issue of certainty, I do not know how the Minister can stand there and pretend that this is about certainty when businesses have no idea which laws will be in or out and when she does not know how many laws are on her dashboard.

On democracy, when we were in the European Union we at least had Members of the European Parliament who had a say over these things. When the laws come back here, we have no say over them at all; it is all with Ministers. Is that what she means when she says this is supposed to be a good Bill that is full of opportunities from Brexit?

Ms Ghani

The hon. Lady has got the meme for her Facebook page. Unfortunately, she wholly misrepresents what the Bill is doing. Environmental standards will be maintained or enhanced. At the moment, the laws that come down from Brussels on the environment and land cover everything from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. This Bill is a great opportunity to maintain, to enhance and to review what more we can do to make things better for our environment across the UK. We already have flagship legislation in place: the Environment Act 2021, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Agriculture Act 2020. The Office for Environmental Protection has been fully established to enforce those elevated environmental rules and standards. The water framework directive covers our water. Instead of misrepresenting what the Bill does, why not take the opportunity to ensure that we enhance provision for what we are not maintaining?

Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)

Listening to the Opposition, we might think that the EU is the land of milk and honey when it comes to the environment. This is the same EU that put fossil fuels and gas in last year’s green taxonomy. Getting out of the EU allows us to have our own taxonomies and to make far greener efforts than naming gas as a green technology, which it is not.

Ms Ghani

We can make sure that we have a better focus on renewables, and we can take the decisions that work best for our communities. Fundamentally, we are maintaining and enhancing. We must not forget that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been able to introduce substantial law on water, animals and land. I have covered the dashboard, and I assume colleagues will now be pouncing on it.

Departments have been actively working on their retained EU law reform plans for well over 18 months to ensure that appropriate action is taken before the sunset date. Additional work to lift obsolete laws will inevitably be slow, but that work will continue. We cannot allow the reform of retained EU law to remain merely a possibility. The sunset provision guarantees that retained EU law will not become an ageing relic dragging down the UK. It incentivises the genuine review and reform of retained EU law in a way that works best for the UK. What reforms are desirable will differ from policy area to policy area.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, said on Second Reading, the environment is one of the Government’s top priorities. We will ensure that environmental law works for the UK and improves our environmental outcomes. As I said, we will be maintaining and enhancing. The Bill does not change the Environment Act, and we remain committed to delivering our legally binding target to halt nature’s decline by 2030.

Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)

Many constituents have been in touch with me with their concerns about habitat protection, maternity leave protection and other issues. The National Archives says that 1,300 additional pieces of legislation are not necessarily in scope. Can the Minister give more clarity on how many pieces of legislation this Bill will cover?

Ms Ghani

We are working across Departments to cover laws that will either be assimilated, amended or revoked. We are finding that a number of those laws are obsolete, and the fact we are still identifying them is good. We are putting them on the dashboard as soon as we can, and we will update the dashboard again this month. It is right that we conduct this exercise to know where we are and to ensure that we refer to UK law where we assimilate, and that we amend it to improve the situation for our communities and businesses. If the laws are not operable in the UK, we can revoke them.

The hon. Lady mentioned maternity rights, which is one of the unfortunate misinformation campaigns on this Bill. I struggle with the fact that colleagues are sharing misinformation, as people who may be vulnerable are made more vulnerable by such misinformation. The UK has one of the best workers’ rights records in the world, and our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU.

Indeed, the UK provides far stronger protections for workers than are required by EU law. For example, UK workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks of annual leave compared with the EU requirement of four weeks—we are doing better here. We provide a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert it to shared parental leave. The EU requirement for maternity leave is just 14 weeks—we are doing better here. The right to flexible working for all employees was introduced in the UK in the early 2000s, whereas the EU agreed its rules only recently and offers the right only to parents and carers—we are doing better here. The UK introduced two weeks’ paid paternity leave back in 2003. Who can remember then? The EU legislated for this only recently—once again, we are doing better here. I ask Members please not to hold up Brussels as a bastion of virtue, as that is most definitely not the case.

Stella Creasy

Will the Minister give way?

Ms Ghani

I will make a little progress.

Significant reform will be needed in other areas, which is why the powers in the Bill are necessary. The people of the UK expect and deserve positive regulatory reform to boost the economy. Via this Bill, we will deliver reform across more than 300 policy areas. We cannot be beholden to a body of law that grows more obsolete by the day just because some in this House see the EU as the fount of all wisdom.

Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)

My hon. Friend is setting out a very powerful case. On the one hand, she is making the case that in Britain we have many laws that are superior and offer greater benefits and protections to residents, and on the other hand, she is making the self-evident point that we should unshackle ourselves from laws that will become increasingly historical, some of which were assimilated into British statute without scrutiny.

Will the devolved Administrations be able to preserve retained EU law where it relates to devolved areas of competence?

Ms Ghani

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the law is already devolved, the devolved Administrations have the ability to assimilate, amend or revoke, which is why some of the interventions from Opposition Members are slightly absurd. Why would they not want the opportunity to have a review? If the devolved Administrations want to assimilate the law, they can. If they want to amend it, they can. If they wish to revoke it, they have that choice. Why would the devolved Administrations not want to embrace the powers this Bill will give them?

Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)

The Minister talks about the devolved Administrations hanging on to their powers. Will she ensure that the dashboard on retained EU law is updated to identify which legislation is reserved and which is devolved, as well as how legislation in Wales might be affected?

Ms Ghani

Yes. The hon. Gentleman may have missed the earlier part of my speech. Government officials have been working with devolved Administration officials for more than 18 months, and that work will continue. When we discover an EU law, we put it on the dashboard. Of course, there are conversations with officials in the devolved authorities, and it is important that we continue to work closely with them.

I was going to say more about the UK’s tremendous work on the environment, because I saw some dreadful, inappropriate coverage in the press, including nonsense about marine habitats. I have just had some information from DEFRA about its fantastic work in Montreal on marine. We have done more work on environmental standards and status outside the EU, including in protected areas such Dogger Bank, to enhance protection by 2030. We are also integrating our ocean and coastal mapping.

Unfortunately, colleagues who are uncomfortable with the Bill have also peddled misinformation about our water bodies and water standards. There is an assumption that the target is being moved, which is absolutely incorrect. Targets are not being moved. It is incorrect to say that the target for the good state of England’s water bodies has been changed—it is still 2027, as outlined in the water framework directive. Hopefully that will cancel out any other misinformation on this stuff being shared on social media sites.

Reform will be needed in other significant areas, which is why the powers in the Bill are necessary. It has been suggested that the Bill will somehow be a bonfire of workers’ rights. We are proud of the UK’s excellent record on labour standards, and we have one of the best workers’ rights records in the world. Our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU. Indeed, the UK provides far stronger protections for workers than are required by EU law. I have already spoken about maternity rights, but we can also look at maternity cover, holiday pay and other rights for employees.

January 19, 2023
Alex Davies-Jones – 2023 Speech on Fertility Treatment (Transparency)

The speech made by Alex Davies-Jones, the Labour MP for Pontypridd, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require providers of in vitro fertilisation to publish information annually about the number of NHS-funded IVF cycles they carry out and about their provision of certain additional treatments in connection with in vitro fertilisation; to require such providers to publish a report about their provision of NHS-funded IVF treatment in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.

It is an honour to speak on this Bill about a subject that colleagues will know is very close to my heart. I thank the Bill’s sponsors, many of whom are here today, for their support. Indeed, I am extremely grateful to have support from colleagues across the House who have recognised that there are currently gaps in IVF policy more widely.

Ask anyone who has experience of IVF, whether personally or from watching loved ones go through the process, and they will tell you that IVF is one of the most emotionally and mentally challenging processes that someone can ever undertake. My own IVF journey began in 2018, and I have been very open about the fact that I knew from the start that my road to pregnancy would be difficult. While I am certainly one of the very lucky ones—after only one round of IVF, I was blessed with my beautiful son Sullivan—I still had many eye-opening experiences during my fertility journey that have led me to this point today.

Let us be clear: the current state of the IVF offering across the UK is far below what would-be parents deserve. I will be honest with the Minister: none of the devolved nations, or England, is currently getting it right.

It was those first-hand experiences that brought me to this issue and prompted me to introduce the Bill. Since I was elected three years ago, I have campaigned extensively to “right”’ the “wrongs” that I have experienced at first hand as an IVF patient. I passionately believe that many of the problems that currently affect patients seeking IVF can be addressed by an improvement in the transparency requirements to which clinics must adhere.

In my view, there are two areas in which inadequate transparency levels are most pressing. First, there is an unacceptable lack of transparency in respect of the number of NHS-funded cycles that IVF clinics are offering. We need to be able to hold the clinics to account for their failures to adhere to guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence which clearly state that NHS England should offer three full cycles of IVF to all women under 40 if they have been trying unsuccessfully to have a child for more than two years. The reality is that across the UK fewer than half of all IVF cycles for under-35s were funded by the NHS, and in England it is even worse: just 36% of IVF cycles are funded by the NHS. The result is a patchwork of different IVF services across the country, with unacceptable regional disparities. Not only will compelling clinics to publish the extent to which they are abiding by NICE guidelines empower patients to make informed choices about paying for treatment, but we will be holding clinics to account over where they fall short. Because of these regional disparities, the vast majority of clinically eligible patients ultimately face funding their own treatment. Such a high proportion is plainly and simply against NICE guidelines. Some couples are having to pay up to £15,000 for a single IVF cycle, and that cannot be right.

The second transparency issue that the Bill seeks to address relates to the controversial “add-on” treatments that IVF clinics market to their patients, often without sufficient information about their efficacy. Different clinics call these products by a wide variety of names. Some refer to them as “supplementary” treatments or “adjuvant” treatments, or, most ambiguously of all, simply “embryology treatments”. These add-ons often add thousands of pounds’ worth of extra “treatment” to the overall cost of IVF, and the science behind them is often murky, or at least unclear.

The mis-selling of IVF add-ons is an issue of particular importance to me. I know at first hand that for many would-be parents seeking IVF treatment, especially those on low incomes and those who have endured several rounds of IVF already, being offered these additional products can often mean making heart-wrenching decisions. When you feel that you would do anything just to increase your chances of successfully having a baby, perhaps even by just 1%, shelling out thousands of pounds for procedures including “endometrial scratching”, “preimplantation genetic testing” or perhaps an “intrauterine culture” seems a reasonable—perhaps even routine—step to take, but the reality is that none of those add-ons has a solid evidence base to support its effectiveness, no matter how scientific they sound. We know that they lack solid clinical evidence because of the work of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and its “traffic-light” system for rating add-ons.

Of course that rating system is useful to many thousands of IVF patients and I commend the HFEA for its work, especially its calls for clinics to be more open about the add-ons they provide, but I strongly believe that we need to do more, which is why the Bill’s second primary purpose is to mandate that clinics publish data on the number of add-on treatments that they sell. We cannot allow a situation in which desperate would-be parents are not properly informed about the efficacy of eye-wateringly expensive add-on treatments, and are exploited and seen as cash cows by clinics that just want to make money. As with the regional disparities issue that I mentioned earlier, by requiring the publication of data on add-on services we can hold clinics to account far more easily, and use that data as a key tool to improve the way in which IVF services are offered across the country.

Put together, the transparency issues that plague our IVF services contribute to what is commonly known as the “postcode lottery” of IVF. Up and down the country, IVF clinics are offering vastly different levels of NHS-backed IVF, often in breach of NICE guidelines, and all with differing approaches to selling add-ons. The NHS’s new integrated care systems, introduced by the Government’s Health and Care Act 2022, were set up specifically to tackle inequalities in access and health outcomes, including IVF outcomes, but if the issues of transparency are not addressed, those inequalities will simply continue to persist. That is why I believe that the Bill is a vital step in ensuring that ICSs fulfil their obligations.

This Bill is a starting point. With the useful data that it will provide, we will have the tools to address the issues that I have raised today. In no way is it trying to fix all the problems that prospective IVF parents currently face. Indeed, I pay tribute to colleagues on both sides of the House who have campaigned tirelessly on other important issues relating to fertility access. I pay particular tribute to one of my co-sponsors, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), for her work on her own Private Member’s Bill requiring employers to provide paid fertility leave.

We have much more to do if we are to improve the way in which our country provides IVF, and improving our cultural attitudes to it, including attitudes in the workplace, is no exception. I believe that the Bill is an important starting point. From transparency will come accountability, and with accountability we can finally address the IVF postcode lottery once and for all.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Alex Davies-Jones, Nickie Aiken, Tonia Antoniazzi, Steve Brine, Stella Creasy, Dame Caroline Dinenage, Christine Jardine, Dame Diana Johnson, Justin Madders, Siobhain McDonagh, Charlotte Nichols and Caroline Nokes present the Bill.

Alex Davies-Jones accordingly presented the Bill.

January 19, 2023
Ben Bradshaw – 2023 Statement on Church of England’s Ban on Same-Sex Couples

The statement made by Ben Bradshaw, the Labour MP for Exeter, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may have heard that today the Church of England bishops have recommended no substantial change to the Church’s current ban on same-sex couples being married in church in England, although of course it is already possible in Scotland and will soon be possible in Wales. Many Members across the House—the majority, I would judge—believe that by continuing to exclude lesbian and gay people from its full rites, the Church is no longer compatible with its established status, which confers the duty to serve the whole nation. Has the Second Church Estates Commissioner indicated to you whether he will come to this House and make a statement on this very serious state of affairs and its potential constitutional consequences?

Mr Speaker

The answer is no—nobody has come to speak to me—but the Second Church Estates Commissioner is here with us and may wish to answer the right hon. Gentleman.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I hear exactly what the right hon. Gentleman says. He will know that I will be answering questions in this House next Thursday, and I will willingly take questions on that. I should also point out that the Church of England has not yet made a formal, full statement on the matter. That will happen on Friday; I myself am only being fully briefed on it tomorrow. I am available to this House next Thursday and at any time at your discretion, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker

Unless the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) can get a question, he may not be able to get in as easily, so it may be appropriate for the Second Church Estates Commissioner to come forward with a statement rather than waiting for Church Commissioners’ questions. It would be helpful to have that statement on Monday; I would encourage that, because it is a topic that the House will wish to know about. I will leave that with the Second Church Estates Commissioner.

January 19, 2023
Lloyd Russell-Moyle – 2023 Personal Statement on Comments Made to Miriam Cates

The personal statement made by Lloyd Russell-Moyle, the Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wanted to notify the House at the earliest opportunity that I have written to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) to acknowledge that the tone of my remarks in the Chamber yesterday was a mistake. I stand by the words that I said, and I profoundly disagree with the comments that the hon. Member made, but our job as MPs is to channel passion and anger into considered debate to win our arguments—in this case, on the trans community and devolution. I recognise that I failed to control that passion during what was an emotional debate. I should have expressed my deep disagreement on what I believe is an abhorrent view in a more appropriate way. I want to particularly apologise to Madam Deputy Speaker, who had to preside over the debate.

Mr Speaker

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice that he wished to come and make that point of order. It allows me to take this opportunity to remind hon. Members of the importance of good temper and moderation in contributions from all sides and all Members. We will disagree, but how we express that disagreement is important. Please, let us have moderate and temperate language going forward.

January 19, 2023
Alan Brown – 2023 Speech on Electric Vehicle Battery Production

The speech made by Alan Brown, the SNP MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

I express sympathy with all those affected by the job losses, but this is an abject failure of the mythical levelling-up agenda. Unfortunately, that should not come as a surprise. It has always irritated me that the Tories claim that they are the ones to level up communities—the very communities that they devastated in the first place.

Just over a year ago, the former, former Prime Minister was boasting about the construction of Britishvolt’s gigafactory. He said that it would create 3,000 direct jobs and 5,000 supply-chain jobs, and support the production of 300,000 batteries for car production. That meant putting our faith in a company with no pedigree, no assets except a field and no products to deliver a £4 billion factory—and that with one owner with a conviction for fraud. We know that the Government do not care about paying taxes, but that is akin to awarding a ferry contract to a company with no ferries. When did the Government do due diligence? When did they realise that there was a problem and what actions did they take? When will we see a coherent strategy for battery production, EV manufacturing, the roll-out of charging points across the UK and, importantly, hydrogen vehicle manufacturing and green hydrogen production?

Graham Stuart

I share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the opportunities that come from net zero. That is why we are moving so hard on nuclear, which of course anybody who is not a prisoner of some ideological opposition and is genuinely committed to green energy would support. We are supporting that across the piece. I do not think that Conservative Members will take lessons on industrial intervention from Scottish nationalists after their shipbuilding enterprises in the north.

January 19, 2023
John Redwood – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Pausing the Ban on New Petrol and Diesel Vehicles

The parliamentary question asked by John Redwood, the Conservative MP for Wokingham, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)

As we are very short of commitments to assemble more EVs in the United Kingdom, which would be needed to create battery demand, will the Minister pause the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles until our EV capacity has caught up? Otherwise, the industry will shrink too much.

Graham Stuart

I thank my right hon. Friend, whose economic insights I always value and appreciate. However, we are committed to electric and zero-emission vehicles and we will not stimulate investment in those sectors by removing the mandates that drive consumer choice and have led to such a significant change in our road transport emissions. We are going to have even more ambitious steps.

January 19, 2023