House of Commons
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I welcome the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) to his place. It is a pleasure to be working with him, and I look forward to discussing some of the many exciting things that will be going on in the Department for International Trade in the months ahead.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) is aware, on Monday the Prime Minister announced plans to enhance our trade and investment relationship with Israel. Last week, I held productive talks with the Israeli ambassador on the matter, and I look forward to strengthening that important trading relationship.
Scott Benton
As the Prime Minister rightly said on Monday, our close co-operation with Israel on security, science and technology benefits not only our two respective nations, but the entire world. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new strategic agreement signed between the UK and Israel will further enhance those ties over the next decade, and will she update the House on when we can expect the consultation period for the new bilateral free trade deal to begin?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The strategic agreement signed with Israel is the starting post for a series of activities that will deepen our trading relationship. We will be opening a public consultation on our enhanced bilateral free trade agreement in January, and we look forward to hearing the views of businesses and stakeholders across the UK on their priorities for that deal. We will also be hosting a joint innovation summit with our Israeli friends in March next year, in order to support new technology ideas.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Secretary of State aware of the huge dynamic in Israeli universities? Will she make every effort, including with resources, to encourage partnerships between UK and Israeli universities, in terms of research, development and innovation?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I said, we will be hosting a joint innovation summit in March with our Israeli friends in those areas of research and development, as mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. How we can work together between our universities is very much on our list of priorities, and I am also working closely with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that we link in the international relationships that we want to grow with Israel.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
For the first time in 50 years, we are an independent trading nation, able to strike deals around the world. We have already secured trade deals with 70 countries, plus the EU, covering trade worth £766 billion last year, and we are just getting started. We have secured an agreement-in-principle with Australia and New Zealand, and we continue to work on a deal with the US. We are preparing for negotiations with India, Canada, and Mexico, and we have also launched a public consultation on a deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council. As we have heard from the Secretary of State, we are due to begin work early next year on an enhanced and improved free trade agreement with Israel.
Mr Hollobone
Warner’s Distillery, based in the village of Harrington in the Kettering constituency is the largest independent craft-based gin distillery in the country, and it is seeking to export even more of its wonderful product. Is it not the case that businesses that export are more profitable, productive and resilient, and is it not exciting for businesses such as Warner’s Distillery, and other businesses in Kettering, that more free trade agreements are coming down the track?
Mr Jayawardena
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Across north Northamptonshire, businesses such as Warner’s Distillery are exporting some £1.5 billion of goods around the world, as measured in 2019. I am confident that the trade deals we are signing globally will benefit more businesses just like Warner’s, to create opportunities and support jobs in my hon. Friend’s corner of the country, and beyond.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The Minister will know that the ratio between damage from Brexit and the trade deals is substantial. Indeed, in terms of pounds, there is £490 of Brexit damage for a £1 gain from the New Zealand deal, £2 gain from Australia, £8 gain from the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and £20 gain from America, if that comes together. If all that happens, it comes to about £31. Where will the Minister find the £459 of Brexit damage that the trade deals cannot make up?
Mr Jayawardena
We are working for every corner of our United Kingdom, backing British businesses. We are supporting Scottish jobs as much as those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, at a time when the SNP wants to cut itself off from its largest market, the British internal market. The truth is that the SNP is anti-trade. Not only does it want to cut itself off from the United Kingdom, but it does not back any trade deal with anyone.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The point and purpose of trade deals—I hope the Minister will agree—is that they are not static, and the forecasts are just an indication of what will come; they will be able to grow and develop. Can the Minister reassure the House that the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership offers an opportunity for the UK to expand its businesses and its exports across the country?
Mr Jayawardena
My hon. Friend is of course right; the TPP offers a great opportunity to access a fast-growing part of the world as part of our Indo-Pacific tilt, as detailed in our integrated review. The opportunity to engage with this part of the world, where there is a growing middle class and increased demand for our products, goods and services, is one that we should seize.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Free trade negotiations with the US are vital to lifting Donald Trump’s tariffs on British steel and aluminium exports, which in turn are crucial to protecting jobs and businesses in communities across our country. Given that the US has already agreed to lift tariffs on many EU steel products, if we are to get a level playing field for our firms and our workers, might it not be time for Lord Frost to be given a little help to stop bungling discussions with the EU so that this vital US-UK trade deal can be sorted?
Mr Jayawardena
We will always stand up for the British national interest, and that includes with the European Union. We will make sure that our United Kingdom remains strong and can trade with the world. The truth is that America’s unjustified tariffs on UK steel, aluminium and derivatives are unfair and unnecessary as those imports do not harm US national security, so we will continue to make representations to back British businesses.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mike Freer)
The Secretary of State announced a refreshed export strategy—Made in Britain, Sold to the World—on 17 November during International Trade Week. This business-centred 12-point plan is designed to transform our support for exporters, encourage them to sell to the world and accelerate our race to £1 trillion-worth of exports per year.
James Wild
I welcome that new strategy. The port of King’s Lynn handles half a million tonnes of exports of barley and other high-quality agricultural products as well as imports, and it has just had one of its busiest years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the investment that Associated British Ports is making in new facilities to support the growing demand for timber from the construction sector and other supply chains is a vote of confidence in Norfolk and will help our economy to bounce back?
Mike Freer
I welcome ABP’s investment in King’s Lynn and was glad to hear of the new Vancouver timber terminal, which I understand will open on Monday, representing £1.4 million of investment. With 95% of the UK’s trade facilitated by the maritime sector, our ports are integral to UK trade and to the success of our Made in Britain, Sold to the World strategy.
Andy Carter
I am sure that the Minister, like me, has been incredibly impressed by the small and medium-sized businesses that are looking to export to new markets. What support is available for a business such as N’Genius, which is based in my Warrington South constituency and has patented a new high-strength stainless steel that can revolutionise engineering and construction? How can this Government help it export that UK innovation to the rest of the world?
Mike Freer
Our new export strategy is a 12-point plan focused on tackling the barriers to trade faced by SMEs. We are opening markets and supporting companies through the export support service, which provides a single point of entry to DIT support for SMEs. This new service will direct businesses to services such as those provided by UK Export Finance, the UK Export Academy and our pilot UK trade show programme. I am happy to connect N’Genius to one of our international trade advisers for further assistance.
Jason McCartney
Growing British exports has a key role in our levelling-up agenda. I am particularly proud of some world-class textile, engineering, sheet metal fabricators and food and drink businesses in my Yorkshire constituency. What more can the Minister and his Department do to support my world-class Yorkshire businesses to export to the world?
Mike Freer
Our export strategy will ensure that those companies in Yorkshire will be supported through all stages of their exporting journey, whether through the UK Export Academy, the advice of our global network of international trade experts, or the financial support or export credit provided by UK Export Finance. In my recent visit to Leeds, I met our excellent team of international trade advisers there. Again, I am more than happy to put them in contact with my hon. Friend to provide additional support.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Exports from Northern Ireland to Ireland were €2.8 billion in the first nine months of this year, up 60% on the same period in 2020. Does the Minister agree that while Brexit has been an export disaster for GB, it has certainly been a boon for exports from Northern Ireland?
Mike Freer
The President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for International Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) took the Board of Trade to a meeting in Ireland. I am sure that that issue was discussed. If the hon. Gentleman would like to know more details of what we are doing to support mutual trade, I am more than happy to have a discussion with him.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
When negotiating free trade agreements, the Government must promote and protect the interests of industries across the UK. What steps are the Government taking to protect the interests of Scottish agriculture in future negotiations?
Mike Freer
The Department for International Trade is always looking to protect our own industries and sectors, including the agricultural sector, while ensuring that they are able to exploit new markets. In terms of beef and lamb, our teams are working hard to ensure that the new markets we are opening up will be available to Scottish farmers. Again, if the hon. Lady would like to know more about the support we are able to offer, I am very happy to facilitate that discussion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his responses, but bearing in mind the fears of our farmers and farmers’ unions following the New Zealand deal, will he outline what steps have been taken with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs at the Northern Ireland Assembly to promote our British produce exports to global markets affected by the New Zealand deal?
Mike Freer
My understanding is that there are regular and frequent conversations between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and DAERA. I am more than happy to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets details of those discussions if he has any specific concerns he wishes to have addressed.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
As the global economy has rebounded from the pandemic, we have seen pressures placed on supply chains across sectors and across the world. It is this Government who have taken quick and decisive action across the United Kingdom to ease those pressures where immediate interventions have been required. The Minister is redefining “quick and decisive”. An Aviva study indicates that more than seven out of 10 businesses are worried about skills shortages and 25% of businesses said their biggest risk is the uncertainty caused by Brexit. The temporary visa scheme for poultry workers has now closed and only nine people applied to join the Government scheme designed to boost the number of fuel tanker drivers, out of an intended 300. Given the failure of those schemes, why will the Government not consider devolving immigration powers, which could deliver the stronger labour market they profess to want but in reality are actively frustrating?
Mr Jayawardena
I am afraid that SNP Members have not woken up to the reality of the opportunities that we now have to trade around the world as part of being an independent trading nation. The hon. Gentleman refers to tanker drivers. Some 5,000 visas have been made available for HGV drivers for a three-month period to provide short-term relief. We have gone further. The long-term sustainable solution is to support and develop our domestic workforce, and to improve the pay and conditions in the sector. That is why the Government are working to correct the structural problems in the haulage industry. We are increasing testing availability by 50,000 a year. We are streamlining the process for efficiency and we are committing £17 million in free skills boot camps for HGV drivers.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The problem that the Minister has is that the shortage of HGV drivers in the UK is happening now. It is already causing huge disruption and we are all anxious to ensure that the situation does not get worse in the run-up to Christmas. Will the Minister tell us how many of the 5,000 temporary worker visas that the Government made available to overseas lorry drivers in September have been allocated?
Mr Jayawardena
We are not going to provide a running commentary on numbers, but what I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that this is not a problem faced only by the United Kingdom. He is so keen always to talk about our friends across the channel, so he will know that France has a shortage of 40,000 drivers, Germany has a shortage of 60,000 drivers, and Poland has a shortage of 120,000 drivers.
Bill Esterson
I find it extraordinary that the Minister was unable to tell us how many visas have been allocated to overseas HGV drivers. We were told in October that it was just 20; I wonder what the figure is now. The reality is that the Wine and Spirit Trade Association warns of “delivery chaos”, of
“major delays on wine and spirit delivery times”
up to five times longer than last year and increases in freight costs—no doubt that will not affect parties in Downing Street. Does he want to be responsible for cancelling Christmas celebrations elsewhere, because if not, he needs to give a much better answer than the one he just gave?
Mr Jayawardena
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not realised that this is not Transport questions, but International Trade questions—I am sure that his new shadow ministerial colleagues will raise questions with Transport Ministers in due course. We continue to see businesses thriving, including in the wine and spirit industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) pointed out.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Eight out of 10 businesses in Scotland say that they need to recruit staff, yet three quarters are reporting skills shortages. Businesses cannot export what they can neither make nor supply, yet the Government’s already tired 12-point plan, which has been mentioned this morning, has nothing to cover workforce shortages or dealing with them. Will the Minister explain why?
Mr Jayawardena
Again, this is International Trade questions, but I am happy to provide an answer on behalf of the Government. We are putting significant resources into training people up to develop our domestic workforce. My understanding is that many people are very keen to find a new job potentially in a new industry. This Government will help them to do that.
Drew Hendry
Clearly, the Government are keen to duck all these issues relating to trade. The Federation of Small Businesses reported to a Committee in this Parliament that a fifth of its members have ceased trading with the UK’s biggest export market—the EU—either temporarily or permanently due to bureaucracy or costs, yet the 12-point plan contains nothing to deal with that issue. The Government’s priorities are clearly elsewhere. Tory cronies are queuing up for a Christmas come early to get contracts and big donors are fairly leaping into the Lords. Why are backbone businesses being short-changed and served only a thin gruel?
Mr Jayawardena
I know that the hon. Gentleman’s Twitter followers will be happy with that statement. The truth is that we have secured trade deals with 70 countries around the world, and the EU. The EU deal is the best deal that it has ever secured with anyone. A zero-tariff, zero-quota deal has been done with no one bar the United Kingdom, and we look forward to trading with not only them, but new markets, as I have outlined.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
Oh, that question is for me as well—thank you, Mr Speaker. I am delighted with the interest from Opposition Members in trade matters.
Her Majesty’s Government share the British public’s high regard for animal welfare and environmental standards. We have agreed ground-breaking animal welfare provisions with Australia and New Zealand, including stand-alone chapters reflecting the importance of animal welfare in those agreements. We have secured ambitious environmental chapters that preserve our right to regulate to meet net zero, affirm our shared commitment to the Paris agreement and will help us to co-operate on a range of environmental issues.
Munira Wilson
My residents in Twickenham are deeply concerned about both the ethics and the quality of the food that they eat, and they have written to me in their hundreds about protecting standards in future trade deals. They also want to protect British farmers, yet farmers across the country, from Cumbria to Shropshire to Cornwall, are being let down by trade deals that threaten to undercut them. If the Minister truly backs British farming and high food standards, why will he not give a cast-iron guarantee to protect them in future trade deals?
Mr Jayawardena
I am sorry that the hon. Lady has clearly not been at previous Trade questions. Britain has secured agreement in principle on free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand, following deals with the European economic area and Japan that will maintain Britain’s high levels of environmental protection and facilitate trade in goods and services for those farmers.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mike Freer)
We are dedicated to facilitating international investment into all regions of the UK, including South Yorkshire, where we work with stakeholders across the region to identify and promote opportunities with high potential, including—my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear—one in Doncaster, focused on the rail sector.
Nick Fletcher
I have spoken to national and international companies about investment in Doncaster, mainly at two sites: DN7 at Thorne and GatewayEast around Doncaster Sheffield airport. I even personally managed to secure a visit to Doncaster from Apple’s UK representative; it was fantastic for him to come up. What steps has the Department taken to encourage international companies to invest in Doncaster?
Mike Freer
We have invested heavily and are building close relationships with the Mayor and the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority to support investment into the region. Details of capital investment projects such as GatewayEast will soon be added to the investment atlas that was published as part of the global investment summit.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Investment in South Yorkshire is important, but even more important is investment in northern Lincolnshire. Could the Minister give an assurance that he will work closely with me and with businesses in northern Lincolnshire, particularly to develop the renewable energy sector, in which we have great expertise?
Mr Speaker
I think there might be a link there somewhere—maybe a road. Carry on.
Mike Freer
I think my hon. Friend was campaigning for a rail line last time we spoke about the area.
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we will continue to give his area access to the export support scheme, the export champions, the Export Academy and our vast network of international trade advisers.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.
Gill Furniss
The Minister claims that environmental protection is a priority in trade negotiations, but that simply does not resonate with the Department’s actions. In the Government’s desperation for a trade deal with Australia, they agreed to water down limited reference to climate change. Australia’s current commitments are consistent with 4° of global warming, far off the international 1.5° target. How is that at all consistent with the Government’s moral commitment to fight the climate emergency?
Mr Jayawardena
I am pleased to reassure the hon. Lady that the environment chapter will break new ground for the United Kingdom. Our agreement in principle includes real commitments to work together more closely on a whole host of areas. The truth is that we are leading the world in the area; we were the first country in the world to legislate for net zero, and we will continue in our endeavours to protect our environment for our children and grandchildren.
Kate Osamor
We cannot claim to have reached genuine net zero as a country, or even to have a plan to do so, until we take into account the impact of our imports on global carbon emissions. Will the Department for International Trade therefore agree to consider the evidence gathered by the Environmental Audit Committee in its inquiry into carbon border taxes? Better still, will the Department initiate an inquiry of its own?
Mr Jayawardena
Her Majesty’s Government welcome input from all parliamentary Committees of this House and will always look closely at all recommendations made, but I would highlight examples of how we are actually delivering on the agenda. We are working with countries such as Brazil and others to support how we reduce the impact of agriculture on the environment, through building new dialogues with agricultural producers and consumers through COP26 and beyond. We aim to support those collaborative actions and ultimately to reduce the impact of agriculture on carbon-rich ecosystems such as rainforests. This is an important area and we will continue to work very hard on it.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The UK-Australia agreement in principle marked the first time that Australia had ever agreed to a specific reference to the Paris agreement in a free trade agreement. Does my hon. Friend agree that trade is an effective way of encouraging other countries to bring their environmental protection standards up to the high levels of our own?
Mr Jayawardena
I commend my hon. Friend for his research. He is absolutely right: this is an important part of our wider diplomacy. Economic diplomacy is crucial to making sure that we spread British values around the world, including protections for the environment. As economies develop, they will of course want to seek the technologies that we have in this country to decarbonise and improve the quality of life for their people, too.
Mr Speaker
I welcome Nick Thomas-Symonds to his new position on the Front Bench.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am also grateful to the Secretary of State for her welcome. I look forward to our debates on the crucial importance of trade to our national economy and, indeed, to promoting our values around the world.
The objective of the New Zealand-led international agreement on climate change, trade and sustainability is to break down global barriers to trade in green goods and services and eliminate the subsidies that are propping up fossil fuel producers. The Secretary of State announced last week that the UK would not be taking part in this crucial initiative. Can the Minister explain why?
Mr Jayawardena
I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place. He is right—the United Kingdom is not currently considering joining the negotiations on that agreement—but we will continue to work with partners to establish how such plurilateral initiatives can help to support discussions at the World Trade Organisation. We will also continue to work closely with our partners on wider trade and environment matters, both through bilateral dialogue and through multilateral forums. That is how we believe we can secure the best results for not only the British people but the world.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Government have not made an inch of progress on green trade in any of the bilateral trade agreements signed since 2019, so why should we put faith in that now? The Board of Trade itself has said:
“There are two main ways that trade can accelerate the green transition: liberalising green trade; and reducing market distortions”.
Does the Minister accept that that is exactly what the New Zealand agreement does, and if so, does he not think that now is the time to show global leadership and not to stay on the sidelines?
Mr Jayawardena
We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the environment receives the full attention of Her Majesty’s Government, but we will also seek to end other environmentally wasteful practices that arise from other state actors, such as the subsidising of the illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing sectors that exist in some countries, and we will press for the successful conclusion of the fisheries subsidies negotiation. That demonstrates that we are working across a number of areas, not just the one to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Penny Mordaunt)
UK trade in goods with the EU has been increasing this year. According to the latest data available, goods exports in September were up by 5.7% on those in the previous month.
Steven Bonnar
Between 2019 and 2021, the value of exports from Scotland decreased by 24%. In England the figure was 12%, in Wales it was 24%, and in the north of Ireland it was 15%. This follows a period of steady decline since 2018. It is economic vandalism. There is hardly a sector in the country that does not attribute at least some of the blame for its difficulties to Brexit. What agreement that removes all tariff and non-tariff barriers do the Government plan to make with another country that can account for 48% of all UK trade?
Penny Mordaunt
Goods exports between Scotland and the European Union were up 4% in quarter 2 compared with the same period last year. We are getting growth back after a period of dealing with the pandemic and other shocks to the global economy, and I ask the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to start focusing on those opportunities. I have had discussions this week with representatives of pretty much every other political party—I have talked to parliamentarians, metro Mayors, local enterprise partnerships and all sorts of bodies around the country in preparing for the further negotiations that we will have in the forthcoming weeks—but I have not heard a peep from his party.
Peter Grant
If the members of the Minister’s party had not cold-shouldered the positive and constructive suggestions made by the Scottish Government immediately after the referendum—if they had even bothered to open and read the document—we might not be in the mess that we are in now.
This month, our figure has improved slightly from an all-time low, which is nothing to celebrate. Exports of food and drink from the United Kingdom to Europe have halved. The Food and Drink Federation has described that as a “disaster” and said that there have been only tiny gains in other markets. There was never going to be a Brexit that would be good for British businesses, but why do the Government not finally come clean and admit that their botched handling of Brexit has made the position even worse?
Penny Mordaunt
I ask the hon. Gentleman: what possible good could come from plugging every part of the UK economy back into the global economy, including the trading powerhouses of the future in emerging parts of the world? What possible good could come from championing a free trade policy globally that would end trade distortions and lift millions of people out of poverty? What good could come of that? I urge his party to get focused on those opportunities and to work with us and enable us to work with the businesses in his constituency to seize those opportunities. The country has decided that that is the future for the United Kingdom. I do wish that he would get on board.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Is it not interesting that my right hon. Friend highlights the recent increase in exports to the European Union, in stark contrast to the doom and gloom that we heard from our opponents, who are saying that there will be a catastrophe and collapse in trade? Will she focus on the countries in central and eastern Europe and the Three Seas initiative—some of the fastest-growing countries on our continent—and build strong bilateral trade agreements with countries such as Poland and others?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the opportunities that exist there. Clearly, we had good news recently on exports, but we also had fantastic news about inward investment and he is right to be optimistic. I think that our businesses are going to thrive in this new environment. There are some challenges that we have to address, but they are being addressed and we can see from the numbers that this is paying off.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Penny Mordaunt)
This deal brings new opportunities to agricultural producers, making it easier to trade with New Zealand. It is a gateway to joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—the CPTPP—a high-standard free trade agreement involving 11 Pacific nations. This will create new export opportunities for British farmers to those markets.
Mr Carmichael
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have to say to the Minister that her confidence is not shared by hill farmers and crofters, or by the National Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union of Scotland. If the Government are confident in their assessment of the opportunities and threats from this agreement, will they commission an economic and environmental impact assessment, independent of Government, to show that they are correct?
Penny Mordaunt
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this will be independently scrutinised, and there is obviously the Trade and Agriculture Commission as well. We have ensured that any reports are produced in good time for all the relevant Select Committees of this House to scrutinise them. There are tremendous opportunities. I also work closely with my counterparts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that we are dealing with the genuine concerns of that sector, and we will continue to do so as the negotiations and deals progress.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Obviously the concerns of farmers and crofters will have to be addressed as the final agreement comes into place, but does my right hon. Friend agree that counter-seasonality offers a huge opportunity for British farmers to enter into agreements with farmers in New Zealand, so that markets across the world can be supplied all year round?
Penny Mordaunt
There are certainly opportunities through that to grow the market further still. I also think that we have to dispel some myths. It is not the case that the market is going to be flooded with New Zealand lamb. New Zealand already has tariff-free access through its WTO quota, of which it uses only half, so it is not the case that those things are going to come to pass. There are some massive opportunities and it is those opportunities that we need to focus on.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mike Freer)
With colleagues in the Treasury, we are committed to championing export opportunities for our world-class financial services sector. We have done this through targeted export campaigns supporting specific UK financial services, as well as through signing ambitious free trade agreements that are reducing market access barriers and opening new doors for great British businesses to sell their services worldwide.
Sir Robert Syms
Financial services are so important to our economy, providing high-paid jobs and earning a substantial amount of revenue. We have done really well on our trade deals and it is vital that financial services are an important factor when we secure them. Will the Minister assure me that that is first and foremost in the Government’s mind?
Mike Freer
We share my hon. Friend’s ambition to ensure that the UK remains a global hub for services and digital trade, which is why we are striking a series of advanced, high-standard FTAs with leading nations around the world. We have already made progress: our FTA with Japan provides greater benefits for financial services than the EU-Japan FTA, and includes provisions to ban unjustified data localisation and to support regulatory co-operation. Our recently signed FTA with Australia also includes an ambitious financial services chapter that will enable businesses to build on the £800 million-worth of financial services exported to Australia in 2020. So, Mr Speaker, the answer is yes.
Felicity Buchan
Financial services account for more than 10% of our total tax take and are responsible for more than 1 million jobs throughout the country. Financial services are important not only to my constituents in Kensington but to Scotland, including Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow, and to Newcastle, Leeds, Bristol and Chelmsford. Does my hon. Friend agree that financial services need to be priorities in all future trade agreements to secure best market access?
Mike Freer
We are absolutely committed to prioritising British financial services in FTAs. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as the Government’s trade envoy to Iceland and Norway—a role that she fulfils with her usual vigour—will be pleased to see our commitment in practice in the UK’s recently signed FTA with Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein, which benefits financial services.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Office for National Statistics data shows that services trade with the European Union is down 28%—the Minister neglected to mention that in his long response. So could he say where we are in terms of negotiations with the EU on equivalence for our financial sector?
Mike Freer
I will have to refer the hon. Gentleman to discussions with colleagues. I will write back to him.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Penny Mordaunt)
It is an ongoing independent investigation by the Trade Remedies Authority. Although the authority indicated last month what it is minded to do, it would not be appropriate for me to try to pre-empt the outcome of the investigation.
Liz Twist
It has now been more than eight months since the European Commission imposed anti-dumping duties on aluminium extrusions from China. Will the Minister tell us why, by comparison, our Trade Remedies Authority has been so slow to act on this issue? Will she assure us that the authority will take into account the risk of Chinese imports being diverted into the UK after the EU decision?
Penny Mordaunt
I am afraid that, as I alluded to, I cannot comment on the investigation or its potential outcome. The TRA is carrying out its work methodically and thoroughly. I encourage the hon. Lady to ensure that the businesses in her constituency that have an interest in the issue make representations to the TRA. I am sure she is encouraging them to do so, and that evidence is critical in ensuring that we get the right outcome. I will undertake to keep her up to date as things progress.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Last week my Board of Trade published our “Digital Trade” report, which demonstrates how we can boost exports, turbocharge economic growth for the whole UK and create high-paying jobs across all four of our family of nations using digital tools. Because geography is now history, digital tools ensure that services can be delivered from anywhere.
We export more than £200 billion of digitally delivered services. With investment and the right planning, I want to make sure the UK improves on its already pretty impressive second place in global digital trade to get to the top of that chart. I have negotiated a world-first set of digital trade principles with our G7 partners and will be continuing to deliver these through our trade deals in the months ahead.
Lee Anderson
Boneham & Turner in Ashfield has been around for more than 100 years and, post Brexit, it is thriving, like many other businesses in Ashfield. Its boss, Charlie Boneham, tells me that the US is a big part of its business. Will my right hon. Friend please advise me on where we are with a possible trade deal with the US?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The US is currently reviewing progress on all the free trade agreement negotiations under the previous Administration. We welcome the opportunity to feed into that review. We have always been clear that a good deal is better than a quick deal, and we are here when the US is ready to continue those discussions.
A deal with the US will benefit not just manufacturers like Boneham & Turner in my hon. Friend’s constituency but the other 30,000 small and medium-sized enterprises that also export goods to the US by removing tariffs, simplifying customs procedures and therefore making it easier to export. We already have £200 billion of bilateral trade with the US, and we continue to encourage those businesses that want to do more to come to the export support service, which the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), discussed earlier, to ensure they have all the tools they need to maximise their trade with the USA.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The emergence of the omicron variant surely underlines that, if we are to protect our citizens from covid, we need to help to accelerate vaccination programmes in developing countries. With Norway the latest country to agree that, in these exceptional circumstances, a temporary waiver on patent rules to help boost vaccine production is needed, why is the Secretary of State so intent on blocking any progress on such a deal?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We have been world leading throughout the pandemic in our negotiations with AstraZeneca on ensuring that vaccines are produced at cost. When I was Secretary of State for International Development, I made sure we invested in COVAX so that we led the way and brought other countries forward to ensure that as much vaccine as can be made gets to those who need it the most. Countries are continuing to work with the smallest and most vulnerable developing countries so they get the vaccines they need. We continue to have discussions on a waiver to the World Trade Organisation agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, although those discussions were postponed this week due to the complexity of omicron and movement. We will pick up those discussions in the new year.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Penny Mordaunt)
I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing to improve digital skills in his constituency. In 2019, 40% of service exports to New Zealand were delivered digitally. Under the New Zealand deal, service exporters, particularly those in his constituency and region, will benefit from more opportunities to deliver services through digital trade. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in her topical statement, referred to the Department’s focus on digital trade, which is vital for the future.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
We engage with officials from the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Government all the time, and we look forward to continuing that.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Mr Jayawardena
Freeports will be national hubs for trade and investment. They will regenerate communities, attract new businesses, and create jobs and opportunities across our country. As they move towards implementation, my Department is working closely with each freeport, including London Gateway, to help pull new investment in and to support exporters to seize the advantages that freeports will bring them.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Jayawardena
China remains, of course, an important trading partner for Britain, but we have no plans to negotiate a trade deal with China. We will build trade only where it supports British businesses and jobs. We will seek to reduce barriers to accessing the Chinese market, but I can assure the hon. Lady that our approach to China will always be rooted in British values and British interests. We want a positive and constructive relationship with China, but I can assure her that we will not sacrifice our values in doing this.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that trade in itself is a force for good in the world, as well as having environmental chapters in trade deals. One example of that is our free trade agreement with New Zealand, which will include the most comprehensive environmental list of goods with liberalised tariffs in a free trade agreement to date. He is right to point to the technology being developed in the UK, which can provide solutions for nations around the world, whether they are developed or developing nations, to meet net zero.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State has a long history of being a supporter of the creative industries and I know that, like me, she will be concerned about the possibility of Channel 4 being lost to Leeds if it is taken over by a global player and taken away—I hope she is concerned about that. We have the BBC in Salford and Channel 4 in Leeds, so does she agree that levelling up would be deeply damaged if we were to lose Channel 4 from Leeds?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. The points he makes are well understood. We often talk about the BBC and soft power, influence and all it brings, but Channel 4 has also done some incredible things, particularly in the disability space, during the Paralympic games in 2012 and since. His points have been well made. This is a matter for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, but I am sure those in that Department will have heard him.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what steps are being taken to establish a free trade agreement with our historical ally Pakistan, and specifically to encourage trade between our country and the Kashmir region?
Mr Jayawardena
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his consistent interest in this area, and I value the conversations we have had on this matter. In the four quarters to Q2 this year, we have had £2.6 billion-worth of trade with Pakistan, and I am pleased to confirm to him that we already offer Pakistan the enhanced framework in the generalised scheme of preferences, which ensures that it has more generous access to the British market than others do today. He will also know, and the House will want to be aware, that between July and September this year we ran a consultation on our proposed new developing countries trading scheme. This is a statement of our intent: the British Government want to take a more ambitious, more generous, more pro-growth approach to trading with developing nations. Our new scheme will mean more opportunities and less bureaucracy—
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for the support that she has given in the past to the development of tidal stream renewable energy generation. Now that we have the very welcome ring-fenced pot for tidal stream energy, will she charge her Department with the development of a strategy to ensure that we can export that expertise as we move towards commercialisation?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The right hon. Gentleman will be as pleased as I am to see that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury were able to find a way to make sure that the contract for difference, now published, will be able to provide that ring-fenced support for tidal stream. As he knows, I visited earlier in the year to see the work for myself and to talk to those who have been developing this technology. As part of the work that the Department for International Trade will be doing on green trade across the world, we want to ensure that, as that potentially becomes commercially viable, such firms are absolutely at the forefront of the package of tools that other countries will also be able to use to help them to decarbonise their energy sectors. We will work very closely with those firms. The Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, who is overseeing the export service, will make sure that they are included and supported as they think about where those markets might be.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State update the House on trade discussions with India? She will know that any reduction in the punitive tariffs that apply to Scotch whisky would be an enormous boost for the industry.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Peter Grant—[Interruption.] I call the Minister first.
Mr Jayawardena
I commend my right hon. Friend for his endeavours in making sure that Scotch whisky can be enjoyed by more people more reasonably all around the world. Britain wants a deal that slashes barriers to doing business and trading with India’s £2 trillion economy and its 1.4 billion-strong population, and Scotch whisky is at the top of our agenda.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I could never have thought that I was about to be called, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In a few weeks’ time, the United Kingdom will start to apply import controls to goods coming from the European Union. Last year, when the European Union started to apply its controls, a large number of small and medium-sized exporters, particularly in the Scottish food and drink industry, felt that they were simply left to sink or swim. What assurances can the Government give that small import businesses in Scotland will not be hung out to dry next year in the way that small exporters in Scotland were left hung out to dry last year?
Penny Mordaunt
I encourage the hon. Gentleman, if he has not already done so, to put businesses in his constituency in touch with our Department. The export support service runs alongside the trader support service—indeed they are joined up organisations—and we are there to provide bespoke support to businesses, to help them work through some of the challenges with new paperwork and so forth, and to give them the information they need to make business planning decisions. I encourage him to put those businesses in touch with us directly, and we will support them.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Alongside Blackpool tower and the pleasure beach, Blackpool rock is just one of the things that makes my constituency world famous. Exports of our most famous edible product, produced locally, are growing year on year. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can boost these exports around the world?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mike Freer)
I am more than happy to ensure that my hon. Friend is put in contact with our export support scheme, our international trade advisers, our export champions, and our Export Academy to ensure that the world-famous rock continues to be sold across the world.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Let us try again, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Exports from Ireland to GB soared in the first six months of 2021 after Brexit, as imports sent in the opposite direction declined. I wonder whether the Minister can come to the Dispatch Box and advise the House on this matter. With a post-Brexit imbalance in trade, with Irish imports up 20% in the first six months of 2021 and GB exports to Ireland down by more than £2.5 billion, do they not recognise that, for GB—not Northern Ireland—Brexit is a trade disaster?
Penny Mordaunt
From figures that I mentioned earlier, the hon. Member will know that the situation is improving for Scottish businesses. He will also know that the bulk of the disruption and slowdown has been because of the pandemic. We are now coming out of that, and we would love to have a constructive dialogue with his party and its Members of Parliament to ensure that businesses in their constituencies are getting the right support to seize the opportunities that are now opening up. If we provide the right support for businesses, this should be an exciting time when they will be able to thrive. I encourage the Scottish National party to come to terms with the fact that we have left the EU, and that we are determined to make a success of this and to plug the economy of every part of the UK back into the global economy. The sooner that SNP Members come to terms with that and start pulling in the right direction, the better off their constituents will be.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Big landmark trade agreements such as those with Japan, New Zealand and Australia make the headlines, but the excellent work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing to remove trade barriers around the world also creates big new opportunities for businesses in my constituency of Dudley South. What progress is being made on the work to remove the trade barriers that restrict the flow of British goods and services?
Mr Jayawardena
Every year, we break down barriers across the world, and this year there has been a 20% increase in the number of barriers that we have broken down, benefiting businesses across the whole of our United Kingdom—in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We look forward to continuing this work to generate more jobs for people across our country in the years ahead.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
COP26 was an important step towards meeting our international climate commitments, but that must be carried through into all aspects of Government policy. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the environmental impact of trade, through both imports and exports, is mitigated as far as possible?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
UK leadership through COP26 has been world respected and renowned. The Department for International Trade is now able to continue the extraordinary leadership shown by my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) as COP26 President to ensure that the technologies that the UK is developing, has developed and will continue to develop will be at the forefront of all matters environmental in order to help every part of the world meet its decarbonisation challenge.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What discussions have taken place with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office to place Afghan refugees in work in places such as Mash Direct and Willowbrook Foods in my constituency of Strangford, and across the agrifood sector in Northern Ireland, which is in need of migrant workers to fill the vacancies that presently exist?
Penny Mordaunt
I would be happy to get those Departments to give the hon. Gentleman some further details. Every Department across Government, including the Department for Education, is focused on ensuring that people who are coming here to restart their lives in safety are given every opportunity, and that their skills can be utilised. We are also thinking about how we can help those who are still left in country. I undertake that the FCDO will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Fairtrade, I have been heartened by how many British people have been looking to support Fairtrade products, including bananas, coffee and chocolate, and to support Fairtrade producers and farmers around the world. Will the Minister continue to put fair trade at the heart of new trade deals so that we can continue to support these Fairtrade producers and farmers around the world?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As the Minister for Trade Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), mentioned earlier, now that we are a sovereign independent nation and can make trade deals in our own right, we want to ensure that we use trade for good and that the UK brings that leadership. Next year, we will be working closely with our African colleagues in particular to think about how we can boost trading relations and the support that we can provide to encourage the value chain to sit with those developing countries, which have the opportunity to grow their trade balance and ensure that they see the benefits of trade too.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I wonder what the Minister makes of the report in the Financial Times that far less than a trade deal, America will lift its steel tariffs if the UK violates article 16. Does she welcome America keeping control?
Penny Mordaunt
That story might be true in terms of how some people in the United States feel, but it is a false narrative. These are two entirely separate issues. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be discussing the issue of steel and other matters next week with her opposite numbers in the United States, but we not do ourselves any favours if we perpetuate these false narratives. They are entirely separate issues. I again encourage the hon. Gentleman and his party to start talking about what the UK has done to protect peace on the island of Ireland, and our reasonable request to the EU. He might also like to talk to his American friends about what the EU has done to disrupt that, including triggering article 16 on the most sensitive of goods—vaccines. We have acted in good faith. We will do more to tell America that we have acted in good faith and are determined to be pragmatic, and Lord Frost is going to do that. The hon. Gentleman has to separate false narratives from how some in the US feel.
Business of the House
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 6 December will include:
Monday 6 December—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Armed Forces Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Dormant Assets Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 7 December—Remaining stages of the Nationality and Borders Bill (day 1).
Wednesday 8 December—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Nationality and Borders Bill (half day), followed by Opposition day (7th allotted day—second part). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 9 December—Debate on a motion on the contribution of financial services to the UK economy, followed by debate on a motion on consular support for British citizens. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 10 December—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 13 December will include:
Monday 13 December—Remaining stages of the Subsidy Control Bill.
Thangam Debbonaire
Let me first say how pleasing it was yesterday to see the Leader of the House in a splendid-looking mask in Prime Minister’s questions. It is nice that he has responded to the urgings from Labour Members. I also make a request that neither of us refers to what one may or may not do underneath mistletoe. I thank him for the forthcoming business.
Yesterday was World AIDS Day. The Global Fund, with thanks to UK Aid Direct, has made remarkable progress against AIDS, TB and malaria, and that partnership has saved 44 million lives around the world. Unfortunately, however, for the first time in its history, results from its key programmes have declined, which means that fewer people are helped. Department for International Development funding used to be globally renowned and rightly celebrated. The Government chose to abolish DFID. Will the Government instead stop cutting international aid to vital programmes that are protecting lives, providing healthcare and preventing transmission? That is how we end HIV infections and deaths by 2030. That is the global leadership we need, but it seems to be sadly lacking from this Government.
At the start of the week, the Government mentioned changes to mask wearing for students in schools and colleges, but we have not yet had a statement from the Education Secretary on these new measures. The current Education Secretary must surely have learned from the previous one about the chaos that is caused when information is not provided in a timely manner. Will the Leader of the House therefore ask him to come and provide clarity in this place for both parents and children who have already lost out so much during the pandemic?
Back in October, the Prime Minister appeared to confirm that the online safety Bill would have completed all stages by Christmas. Then it was just going to be Second Reading. Then No. 10 seemed to row back even further to some vague commitment that the Bill will be presented at some point during this Session. Yesterday, I think I got a muttered assurance from the Prime Minister that it would be brought forward by that wonderful date “soon”. Could the Leader of the House help us out? Could he tell us what “soon” means? Will he tell us what the timetabling is for that Bill, because the Prime Minister does not seem to know?
On Monday, the Committee on Standards published its proposals for an updated code of conduct for MPs. I am looking forward to hearing the statement on that from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) after business questions. Given the Prime Minister’s apparent, alleged, new-found respect, so he says, for standards in public life, surely we should have a debate on these proposals in Government time. However, if the Government response is anything like their response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life report, I am not holding my breath. It took them three years to accept that report. Once again, it seems that the Government are saying one thing one day and then the complete opposite the next, and the Leader of the House knows where that leads.
Two weeks ago, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a Humble Address motion was passed by this House, so the Government must now publish any and all of the minutes from the meeting between Lord Bethell, Owen Paterson and Randox over the award of a contract that involves hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. As the Leader of the House knows, the Government must do that in a timely fashion, otherwise they will be in contempt of Parliament, as I understand it, yet nothing so far has been produced. That is much like the delays to the online safety Bill.
There just seem to be more delays and more delays, with Ministers saying that they cannot possibly make the minutes public for another two months. That leads me to wonder whether those vital minutes actually exist. If they do, will the Leader of the House ask Ministers to come and tell us about them? If they do not, can they admit that now, rather than pretending to spend the next two months looking for them? I have to say that I find it rather odd that this Government think they do not need to keep any receipts for spending half a billion pounds of public money, but then again, if they do not, it is just taxpayers’ money they are wasting, so why would they bother?
In conclusion, we seem to have a Government who fail to plan, who fail to bring forward key legislation and who fail to keep receipts for taxpayers’ money. They are a Government who have lost their grip, and it is working people who are paying the price.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady seems to have missed the fact that the rules on masks changed, which is why people are wearing them more. They are compulsory in public transport and in shops, but they are not compulsory in the Chamber. It is a matter of judgment for people, and people are entitled in this Chamber not to wear them if that is the decision they want to make. That is really important and comes to the point that the hon. Lady was making about schools. There is advice to schools that older students and teachers may want to wear masks in communal areas, but people must make decisions for themselves. We on this side of the House believe in individual responsibility.
I encourage schools to keep up with their activities and with their nativity plays. I hope to be absent from spectating at Prime Minister’s questions next week so that I can watch one of my children—young Alfred—appearing as a donkey in a Christmas play, although from what I hear he will be modelling himself on Balaam’s ass, which of course was a talking donkey, and I understand my son will be a talking donkey at the school nativity play. I encourage all schools to carry on with these very important activities.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for welcoming the work being done by the Government in support of World AIDS Day and the ambition to stop new infections by 2030. An extra £20 million of public funding—the Government using taxpayers’ money—will be devoted to that end, and a written statement was issued yesterday.
As regards the online safety Bill, it is going through pre-legislative scrutiny. That is very important, because we often hear the Opposition say, “Wouldn’t it be nice to have a bit of pre-legislative scrutiny? Isn’t that a good way of proceeding?” Then, when we have it, they say, “Well, you are being frightfully slow.” They cannot have it both ways, and then we get into a metaphysical discussion of “What is time?”, “What is soon?” and “What is Christmas’?” We could say that Christmas goes on at least until 2 February, which is Candlemas and the formal end of Christmas, but then we could decide to use the Orthodox calendar, which goes on even later. Such metaphysical discussions of time are not necessarily elucidating for the progress of legislation.
I am much looking forward to the presentation by the Chair of the Committee on Standards, to which the hon. Lady referred, on the important report that the Committee has published. The report asks for a consultation period, which I think will inevitably include a debate in the House. I look in the direction of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), because when the Committee was set up, it was generally considered that Select Committee reports would be debated in Backbench Business time. I hope that we can come to a suitable arrangement, but it is inevitably something that the House will want to discuss.
There is more joy in heaven, as we all know, over one sinner who repented than the 99 who remain unrepented. The hon. Lady has at last eschewed socialism, because she has used the words that we use on the Government side of the House—taxpayers’ money. Normally, the socialists think that it is their money or the state’s money that they allow poor hard-pressed taxpayers to keep a little of out of their benignity, but we on this side know that it is taxpayers money. There is no other money in the system than that taken from people up and down the country.
Conservatives have therefore always held spending taxpayers’ money to the highest standard, while the socialists spent—what was it?—£13 billion on some scheme to make the NHS’s IT system technologically efficient and squandered money on tax credits over and over again, because they have always been incontinent in their use of taxpayers’ money. I am delighted by the hon. Lady’s conversion and move in the direction of Toryism, which is a welcome joy for those of us on the Government Benches. I assure her that we also take the constitution seriously and believe that Humble Addresses must be respected, as they will be.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Government take the constitution seriously, so I put it to the Leader of the House that although we are about to have the opportunity to question the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about his report, a debate in Government time would be helpful because of some aspects of the report. For example, the potential extension of the jurisdiction of an official into what happens in the Lobbies and in Select Committees touches on the principle of the Bill of Rights that no proceeding in Parliament be questioned in any place or court other than Parliament itself. Indeed, the principle of democracy is undermined by the proposal that we may be required to subscribe to behaviours to promote certain attitudes. I hope that my constituents never elect a racist or a misogynist, but they have a right to.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend shows that there is much to debate on the report. As I have said, I think it is important that the House debates those matters. I point out that in terms of the Floor of the House, there is no difference between the standing of a debate in Government time and of one in Backbench Business time. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is here and will have heard the requests for a debate on the subject loud and clear before his Committee meets, but I am open to a discussion with him to ensure that time is available.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Hip, hip, hooray! Raise the flags—Union Jacks, of course—and let us have a party in Downing Street. The Leader of the House at last had a face mask on his fizzog at Prime Minister’s questions. All he needs to do now is to convince those menaces on the libertarian wing of his Conservative party to do the same. He and I were at the same meeting when Public Health England told us that if everybody on the estate wore a face mask, infections would be cut by 12%, so no more excuses: masks on mushes.
Tuesday was a big day in the House which we will have to debate properly. For probably the first time, the L-word—the one that rhymes with “mire” and “fire”—rang out loud and clear in the Chamber. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, ruled that it could be used in the context of the debate on the conduct of the Prime Minister, possibly because no other word could be found as an appropriate replacement or substitute. The public’s outrage at the conduct of the Prime Minister just goes on, and we have to be able to debate this in the proper context and use the words that are right and appropriate for the behaviour displayed.
Today, of course, it is the Leader of the House who is all over the headlines, as he emerges as the latest Government Minister to be investigated because of his outside interests. Six million quid! I never knew he was so loaded. He could buy two peerages in the House of Lords with that money. We have to debate the Standards Committee’s report. Will he now pledge to recuse himself—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be very careful about what he says on any matter being considered by the Standards Committee, whose Chairman is listening carefully, as am I. I am sure the hon. Gentleman can find a way of making the points he wishes to make from a political point of view without straying into matters that should not be brought here to this Chamber at this time.
Pete Wishart
Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I cannot wait to hear from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about his report. It is right that this is debated, but the Leader of the House must recuse himself from participating in that debate.
Lastly, the Conservatives say none of this matters; that is what they told us on Tuesday. They have lost their opinion poll lead to the Labour party—the Labour party, for goodness’ sake—but in Scotland there was an opinion poll showing support for Scottish independence is now back up to 55%. I repeat, 55%. The Scottish people are looking at this corrupt, sleazy cesspit, and they do not like what they see and are quickly determining that it is time to get the hell out of this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the Leader of the House answers the points made by the hon. Gentleman, I feel it incumbent upon me to clarify that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he said about my ruling on what the parliamentary leader of the SNP, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), was permitted to say in this Chamber during the Opposition day debate earlier this week. However, I must make it absolutely clear to the House, because I do not think this has been widely understood, that that was very specifically in the context of the debate being on a censure motion about a particular person, and the use of any word that implies that a Member of this House has not told the truth is allowed only in that very narrow context. This is not to be taken as a general ruling that these words can be used. There are, of course, always polite and moderate ways of making points, and that is how they should be made here in this Chamber.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is so easily pleased. Had I realised that he would become sweetness and light merely by my momentarily wearing a mask, I may have been tempted to do it before the Christmas season or the season of Advent was upon us.
The hon. Gentleman wants to bat back and forth opinion polls, and I note that, as I told him last week, even SNP supporters do not think that having a referendum on independence is very important. I think they want to see the SNP Government in Scotland getting on with running Scotland properly—making the health service work, building the roads and dealing with all the problems that they are singularly failing to deal with. They could not even get the new advice out to vaccination centres so that people could get their vaccines when the advice was changed around the country at large.
The hon. Gentleman wishes me to go to the House of Lords, which is very flattering of him. He is clearly unaware of the 1539 Act about places in Parliament—the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539—which allows the Lord President, when not a peer, to go and sit in the House of Lords. It is not a privilege I have ever taken up, as I am worried that their lordships might be a bit surprised, but the Lord High Chancellor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Treasurer—a position currently in commission—and various others have the right to go and sit in the House of Lords when they are not peers, so I assume that is what the hon. Gentleman was talking about.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I have been campaigning for much-needed improvements to two tube stations in my constituency, South Kensington and Ladbroke Grove, both of which desperately need step-free access. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Transport for London and the Mayor of London are letting down Londoners by mismanaging TfL’s finances, and would my right hon. Friend contemplate a debate on the subject?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We could have a debate on the terrible failures of the Mayor of London and Transport for London. Transport for London seems to have a campaign of hating the motorist and doing everything it can to make driving in London difficult, with ridiculous 20 mph speed limits on straight and wide roads, with road closures and every possible inconvenience to the motorist—and then it cannot run the underground system properly. I agree with my hon. Friend, though she may wish to apply to the Backbench Business Committee in the first instance.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I apologise to hon. Members across the House for my absence from this place last week. I was with the Education Committee on a visit to a prison—somewhere many of my constituents think I should have been for some time. I will just point out to the Leader of the House that when it comes to debates on any given matter that hon. Members want, if we receive a formal application from Members, we will of course consider it, but we have not yet received any sort of application about the subject discussed earlier. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give us privately an indication of any plans for Backbench time in the first week back in January, as we need to plan for that in advance of the Christmas recess.
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for football supporters, a group we established a number of years ago. We welcome the publication of the recommendations of the fan-led review of football governance, under the leadership of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). The recommendations have been warmly welcomed by fan groups and fans of football across the country, so can the Leader of the House give us some insight as to whether they might be brought forward as part of the Government’s legislative programme in the remainder of this parliamentary Session, or be included in the Queen’s Speech for the next session?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will do my best to give the hon. Gentleman a private indication as soon as I possibly can about when there will be new Backbench Business debates. I note his support for the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), which was very popularly received. I doubt I would be giving away too great a secret if I indicated that the state of business at the other end of this Palace is so crowded that the prospect of new legislation in this Session is probably limited.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Leader of the House gave us the business until 13 December, but the House rises on 16 December, so we still have three unallocated days. After four years, two general election manifestos and a pledge in a national newspaper hand-signed by the Prime Minister, still we have not introduced the much-delayed legislation to end the cycle of endless investigations against Northern Ireland veterans. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told us we would have it by the summer recess, and he faithfully promised that it would be into Parliament by the end of the autumn. I think we can agree that Christmas means the end of the autumn. In the three-day window that remains, I earnestly ask the Leader of the House to ensure that that legislation appears—#wheresyourbillbrandon.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend makes appeals that are always heard, and can sometimes be assured of falling on fertile ground. I hope I will be able to reassure him that this matter is at the top of the priority list for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
A constituent of mine recently wrote to me to say that she was concerned, looking at how this House operates, that children do not figure very often. We are approaching a Christmas and a winter when a large number of poorer families with children in this country are facing a really tough time. Can we put the record straight a bit? I know the Leader of the House knows about money—he was telling us he was very conversant with it. We desperately need to give help to the poorer families in this country before Christmas so that they can enjoy Christmas and their children do not go to bed hungry.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Of course it is important to support children, and to support families, which is what the Government have been doing with a number of schemes. Children who live in working families have a much better chance of not being in poverty, and raising the national living wage to £9.50 next year means an extra £1,000 a year for a full-time worker. Two million families will get an extra £1,000 a year through our cut to the universal credit taper and the increase to work allowances. There is £200 million a year to continue the hugely successful holiday activity and food programme. The Government of course take the needs of children into account in what they do, the benefits that are provided, and the welfare given, and that is fundamental to how the welfare state operates.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern that the consultation on so-called gay conversion therapy, which clearly needs to be stopped, has been extended to include matters of gender, which are considerably more complex, especially as concerns children. The consultation period is too short at six weeks, especially as one version has had to be withdrawn because it contains factual errors. It seems as though the Government are trying to rush through decisions before the Cass review comes out. In those circumstances, will the Leader of the House commit to subjecting the eventual Bill to full prelegislative scrutiny?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As I was saying about the online harms Bill, it is often useful to have prelegislative scrutiny, particularly for Bills that need cross-party support to be effective, and that need to carry the whole nation with them, rather than cause contention and dispute. I note very much what he says, but also what I said in response to the shadow Leader of the House, because sometimes we get criticised for delay if we have prelegislative scrutiny, but criticised for rush if we do not have it.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Earlier this week, the third party, the Scottish National party, lost our Opposition half-day debate on the cost of living. Like others, I lost the opportunity to raise directly with the Minister important cases for my constituents, including those of student nurses, WASPI women, frontline healthcare workers and people with disabilities, who are suffering as a result of this Government’s failure to take measures to assist them with the high cost of living. Will the Leader of the House tell us when we will get that time back, so that we can have a debate about the struggles that our constituents are having with the current high cost of living?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I answered that question when I announced the change to business, and said that we looked forward to doing that as soon as is practicable.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
May we have a statement from the vaccines Minister about the booster roll-out in Dorset? On the face of it, the roll-out is successful nationally, but my constituents in Dorset go on the national website, put in their postcode, and are referred to all sorts of areas and have to get their atlas out to find where they have to go. I went on the website yesterday and was referred to Newport in Wales. Some have been referred to Exeter or Reading, and all those points are nowhere near Dorset, which has nearly 1 million people. There seems to be a vast deficiency in the ability to put vaccines in people’s arms where my constituents actually live. On occasion, it has even been suggested that people go to Yeovil, and although I suspect that a day out in Yeovil is something most of my constituents would love, an hour’s drive there and back is rather long to get the vaccine in their arm. Will my right hon. Friend please draw to the attention of the vaccines Minister that there is a problem in Dorset?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yeovil is on the Dorset border, so there are some people in Dorset for whom Yeovil would be extremely convenient. Yeovil is a town in Somerset, and therefore it is beautiful, glorious, and magnificent. I would have thought it would be a joy for anybody to go to Yeovil. But my hon. Friend makes a serious point, and after this statement I will of course take it up with the vaccines Minister. GPs are getting more involved and being paid £15 for every vaccine they are able to inject. That may be part of the process, but people need to be able to get to a vaccine centre that is reasonably close to them.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May we have a debate on what happens to British nationals when they are stuck overseas, for instance when there are changes to the rules on quarantine? There are 42 Welsh rugby players stuck in South Africa at the moment, including one of my constituents. They are in a double bind. Some of them have now had covid, so they might have to do 10 days’ quarantine in South Africa and then, on top of that, another 10 days’ quarantine in the UK. There is obviously a significant cost to that; more importantly, there is a cost to their mental health, too. Is there more we can do to help them to get home?
Mr Rees-Mogg
If there are specific constituency cases, the hon. Gentleman should raise those in the normal manner. If he needs the assistance of my office in doing that, I am always willing to help hon. and right hon. Members. The issue could have been raised in the broad debate on introducing the regulations, which took place when we took away the half day from the SNP. So there was a chance to debate it, but certainly we would be very keen to help with individual constituency cases.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Following Kristallnacht on 9 to 10 November 1938, the then British Government relaxed the rules on Jewish refugee children from Austria, Germany, Czechoslovakia and Sudetenland, and allowed 200 to come here. Today is the 83rd anniversary of the first arrival of the Kindertransport. May we have a debate in Government time on safe routes for refugee children to come to the UK in the time-honoured way that we in this country have always allowed and encouraged refugees from war-torn areas?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is so right to remind us of the 83rd anniversary of the Kindertransport, which was a wonderful humanitarian approach that crucially ensured there were safe routes for coming to this country. That is what we should work on, as the previous Prime Minister David Cameron did, taking up to 20,000 Syrians from refugee camps around Syria, rather than expecting people to take dangerous journeys. It is really important that people who come to this country to claim asylum do so by legal and safe routes, rather than being in the hands of people-traffickers. That is why the Nationality and Borders Bill, the remaining stages of which we will have next week, will make it easier for people who make legal claims and come here lawfully, and harder for people who come here using illegal routes.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
In my constituency, a 91-year-old man was left waiting for an ambulance for seven hours. This crisis includes the Leader of the House’s constituency: in the south-west, ambulance waiting times are sky high. The crisis is also reflected across the country. In north Shropshire, response times to urgent calls are now four hours. May we, urgently, have a debate in Government time on ambulance waiting times?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point because our constituents in North East Somerset and in Bath share health facilities. We have over 4,000 ambulance crews in operation across the country, which is an increase of 500 since 2018. NHS England has given ambulance trusts an extra £55 million to boost staff numbers this winter and there is an extra £5.4 billion for the NHS altogether. Significant amounts of money are being put in, but I accept that when one is waiting seven hours for an ambulance that is not much of a compensation. There is an issue and things do need to improve.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Can the Leader of the House please confirm to my constituents that the UK Government are committed to at least two freeports in Wales? Will he update the House on how discussions on freeports are progressing with the Welsh Government?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Freeports are a really important way of levelling up. They are national hubs for trade, innovation and commerce, regenerating communities across the UK, attracting new businesses, and spreading jobs, investment and opportunity to towns and cities across the whole of the United Kingdom. Her Majesty’s Government are committed to establishing the freeports programme in Wales as soon as possible. I suppose there is a difficulty, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you have heard the news that the socialists have gone into partnership with the separatists in Wales, so we now have to wonder whether the socialists are any longer a Unionist party.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Now that we are into December, families across the country will be sitting down together to stream their favourite festive films. The Prime Minister clearly is not a fan of “Home Alone”, but perhaps the Leader of the House is. Despite the House legislating for minimum levels of subtitles, British sign language signing and audio description for on-demand services in the Digital Economy Act 2017, it has taken four years for Ofcom to make final recommendations to Government on the level of access services to be provided and which broadcasters should be covered. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport before Christmas setting out when she will introduce regulations to make video-streaming services accessible to all our constituents?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising a point that will be important to many of our constituents. Ofcom is an independent statutory body and is therefore not directed by the Government. We cannot say go and it goeth, but the issue is important and I will take it up with the Secretary of State on the hon. Lady’s behalf.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Can we have an urgent debate on the need for an efficient service from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to get our heavy goods vehicle drivers back on the roads? My constituent, Mr Martin Hewitt, has had eight letters from his local hospital or his GP go missing at the DVLA. That has kept him off the road, it means that he cannot earn, and it puts further pressure on our supply chains.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The situation facing Mr Hewitt is clearly a failure, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised it on the Floor of the House. I will send an extract from Hansard to DVLA, so that it is aware of this particular case once Hansard is published. However, there is good news from DVLA that the additional online services and additions to staff have meant extra space in Swansea and Birmingham to house more staff to reduce waiting times. DVLA has been apologetic for the delays that have been created in returning people’s documentation, but with the 32 short, medium and long-term interventions that the Government have taken to help to tackle the global driver shortage, we now have over 90% more testing spaces available for HGV drivers on a weekly basis. So the HGV problem is being tackled, things are beginning to change and I understand that DVLA is beginning to get to grips with its backlog, but that is not very satisfactory for Mr Hewitt.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
On Hogmanay, we will commemorate the 92nd anniversary of the Glen cinema disaster, when a smoking film cannister caused a panic, which, due to a blocked exit, led to a crush that killed 71 people, all of them children. Last week, a permanent memorial to those who died was unveiled in the centre of Paisley just yards from the site of the Glen. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking those who organised the memorial—Future Paisley, the Paisley Community Trust and Paisley Rotary club—send best wishes to two living survivors, Emily Brown and Robert Pope, and perhaps find time for a debate to honour those young lives?
Mr Rees-Mogg
How remarkable that there are two survivors from a disaster 92 years ago—they must be shortly due to receive a telegram from Her Majesty to congratulate them on their longevity, if they have not already. I would indeed like to join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the organisations that have built and paid for the memorial of this terrible tragedy, killing 71 children—all children. I particularly praise Paisley Rotary, because I am a Rotarian for Midsomer Norton and Radstock rotary. The unsung work that Rotarians do up and down the country is really heroic in so many of our communities. They do things that other people do not necessarily want to do and they just get on with quietly. They do not ask for a lot of thanks, so I particularly thank Paisley Rotary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I cannot help saying to the Lord President of the Council that my grandfather was a founder member of Paisley Rotary club. The question from the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) is really important in Paisley, as was the right hon. Gentleman’s answer.
I call Mr Liddell-Grainger.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I hope I did not point my finger the wrong way just then, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Government did not listen to the referendum in Somerset over unitary, and they did not listen to the districts when they held their own referendum, but I am delighted to say that they have now said that the elections for Somerset will take place next year. My right hon. Friend knows how important democracy is, as we all do. Putting those elections off would have been absolutely appalling, so I am delighted. Could we have a debate in Government time on the wonders of democracy, what it means to all of us and how important it is across the world, including—dare I say it—to the Commonwealth and others?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is a delight that my hon. Friend is happy. I thought it was quite something when the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was happy, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) is also happy, it is clearly getting close to Christmas. I would say to him that every sitting we have in this Chamber is a celebration of democracy and the ability to use freedom of speech to express what we want to say, stand up for our constituents and seek redress of grievance. Every day, we do it; we should carry on doing it, and we should celebrate it.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
I am very proud to represent Coventry’s NHS workers, who make the NHS an incredible public service. Today, I am wearing University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire’s charity T-shirt, featuring Penguino and friends, to raise money to support staff and patients.
But NHS workers are exhausted, worn down by the pandemic and a decade of underfunding, so will the Leader of the House give his support to the UHCW charity T-shirt and give Government time to debate the needs of the NHS? As a public service, it should not rely on charity; it needs proper Government funding and an end to privatisation. Its staff deserve a proper pay rise, not the pay cut—once inflation is factored in—that is proposed.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her support for Coventry’s NHS workers and for the charitable work that is going on there. I thought that she was going to ask me to wear a T-shirt, to which I am afraid the answer would have been no, but that does not mean that I am not very sympathetic to the cause.
May I just point out what the NHS recovery plan is? In 2018, delivering on the £350 million on the side of the bus, we gave NHS England an historic settlement that will see its budget rise by £34 billion by 2023-24. To help frontline services to tackle the coronavirus, we have made available approximately £97 billion of taxpayers’ money—ninety-seven thousand million pounds. That was sixty-three thousand million in 2020-21 and a further thirty-four thousand million in 2021-22. In September, we announced an additional £36 billion for health and social care over the next three years.
Applications to study nursing and midwifery have risen by 21% this year. If people are applying to join the NHS, that is surely a good sign about the terms and conditions available.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It has occurred to me that I have failed miserably to get the Leader of the House to grant debates in Government time, so I have thought of a wheeze.
Will the Leader of the House kindly come to my constituency of Wellingborough and Rushden in the east midlands? He can whizz up from St Pancras on the newly electrified line. As he gets out at the station, he will see the beginning of the electrification north to Sheffield. We can pick him up and take him over the new railway bridge; through the new development of Stanton Cross, to see the new houses; on to the wonderful double roundabout at Chowns Mill, which will be opened officially this week; along the A45; past the new magnificent Rushden Lakes leisure facility; further along, seeing on our left-hand side the Wellingborough prison that will be open in the new year—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Is this going to go on for a very long time?
Mr Bone
I must get him there, Madam Deputy Speaker. We can go up through Wellingborough; go up where the new Isham bypass will be built; see where the new Boris hospital is to be built; and then meet Jason Smithers, the new leader of the new unitary council. Then might I persuade the Leader of the House to have, in Government time, a debate on what levelling up means?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It would be a joy to go back to Wellingborough. I have been to my hon. Friend’s constituency before; if I come, I hope he will invite me to speak to his local Conservative association and thank it for all the good work that it does.
My hon. Friend is heroic, because he has saved hours of Government time and Backbench Business time. He has managed to advocate the advantages of levelling up in one question, albeit a slightly long one.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It may disappoint you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it will come as no surprise that I am no monarchist. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Leader of the House will join me today in congratulating the Countess of Dumbarton on the rejection of the appeal by The Mail on Sunday relating to the invasion of privacy, and will therefore set aside Government time to ensure that a judgment that cements the fact that The Mail on Sunday—which is owned by a member of the peerage—has broken the law, and that whether one is the Countess of Dumbarton or a citizen of that ancient, noble borough, the right to privacy and a private life is far more important than the money spent on clickbait in The Mail on Sunday.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am a monarchist. I think that monarchism is essential to our country, and I think that republicanism is a most unpleasant activity. However, I also think that freedom of speech is more important than privacy. I find it concerning that the rich and powerful can use the courts to protect their private lives when others cannot, and I would be deeply concerned about anything that undermined freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is one of the great protectors of our national life and of our constitution.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Five-year-old Willow Jessica Phillips from Ashfield is having her hair cut off on Saturday to raise money and donate her hair to the Little Princess Trust, which is for little girls who have lost their hair through illness. I am sure that a mention from the Leader of the House would go a long way to help her to increase the £600 that she has already raised and help little girls throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What a wonderful little girl Willow sounds, given what she is doing for the Little Princess Trust. This is a truly moving cause, supporting young children suffering from cancer. I commend the trust for its work and its fundraising, and for committing millions of pounds to supporting children directly and funding research on children’s cancers. Willow’s efforts are particularly impressive: raising £500 is a terrific achievement. I wish her all the luck in the world in her fundraising, and I am sure she will raise as much as she possibly can. It is right that my hon. Friend has brought this to the attention of the House, and I hope that the wider public watching on the BBC Parliament channel will dig deep into their pockets to increase the amount given to Willow.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
I have been contacted by constituents employed by the Department for Work and Pensions in my city of Dundee who are deeply concerned about a return to in-office working for all staff—throughout Scotland—from this week. That is contrary to the clear and consistent guidelines from the Scottish Government, which state that working from home should continue to be the norm where possible. Given the timing, may we have an urgent statement, and can the Leader of the House reassure my constituents that he understands that health is a devolved matter, that the DWP will continue to listen to Scottish Government guidance when it comes to the matter of home working, and, finally, that UK Government Departments do not consider themselves exempt from Scottish Government guidance?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think people do want to get back to the office to work. I think it is a good thing to be doing, and I think it increases productivity. One reason that we have heard all those complaints about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is that people were not in the office to work, and therefore the 60,000 pieces of post that were received were not all being dealt with. Working from home has disadvantages in respect of the services delivered to people, and the DWP deals with some of the most vulnerable people in the country, who need and expect to have an efficient service which is best given in person. I would therefore encourage people to go back to work.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The rise of GB News has been welcomed by many of my constituents who are sick and tired of the stale, politically correct and ideologically biased output of much of the mainstream media. Given the availability of so many other channels, is it just that those on low incomes still have to pay a regressive TV tax in the form of the BBC licence fee? Will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate on scrapping it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
GB News is marvellous. I went on it with Mr Farage. The programme was called “Have a pint with Nigel” or something, and I took along my own cider, which we both enjoyed. I would encourage people to watch GB News, and to go on it. I think that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) would be a star performer, and I hope he will take people from GB News up to his farm so that they can watch his lambing in the spring, for which we have specially dedicated recess times that are convenient for him. The question of the licence fee is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Digital, Media and Sport, and I urge my hon. Friend to lobby her enthusiastically with his views.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I refer Members to my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on oral hormone pregnancy tests. The Leader of the House is aware that I have been campaigning for a number of years on behalf of the victims of the drug Primodos. The noble Baroness Cumberlege, a former Conservative Health Minister, produced a review in which she found that there was no excuse for not having withdrawn the drug many years earlier, that harm was caused to the victims and that they should have redress. That report was produced a year and half ago, but to date the Department of Health and Social Care will not engage with us on the matter. Will the Leader of the House please use his endeavours with the Government to ensure that these people get justice after so many years? There was an argument that this was a legal issue, but Baroness Cumberlege was aware of that fact. This is a question of getting redress for those victims.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I congratulate the hon. Lady on the work that she has done on Primodos. I was also a member of her all-party parliamentary group, and I saw at first hand the incredible work that she did tirelessly over many years to bring this issue forward. Without her hard work and effort I do not think that the Cumberlege report would have looked into it. I am very sympathetic to what she says, and I note that she asks for the Department of Health and Social Care to engage with her and discuss the matter. I will certainly do my best through my own office to ensure that there is engagement, because she is arguing for justice and right. The Cumberlege report was an important step in that direction.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I should be drawing proceedings on the business question to a close very soon, but it would be better if everyone had the chance to ask their question. I must ask for brevity, please. Sometimes business questions become mini-speeches, but they do not have to be. If everyone is brief, everyone will get in. If there is not brevity, lots of people will be disappointed.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
It is small business Saturday this weekend, and me and my partner will once again be shopping local for our festive gifts for each other. I will also be joining local councillor Adam Gregg and local campaigner David Heathcote in Lindley in supporting local businesses. Can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of supporting local businesses on our high streets, and will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging everybody to shop local in the lead-up to Christmas and of course to wear their masks in shops?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner, and he is quite right to support small businesses. There is often very good service from small businesses, and one can help the local economy by encouraging people to shop locally, in farmers markets and so on. I would encourage people to follow the model that my hon. Friend is, in this regard.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Over the past two weeks, the number of pupils absent from schools has risen by 47% to the equivalent of some 8,300 classrooms-worth of children missing from school. As always, the most disadvantaged are disproportionately impacted, so will the Leader of the House please grant a debate to discuss this pressing issue and ensure that we keep schools open through the winter with maximum attendance? This is vital for our children’s wellbeing and learning.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am in considerable agreement with the hon. Lady. It is so important that children are in school. This is very often a question of the way we look at the figures. As I understand it, 88% of pupils are in school. I cannot absolutely swear to that figure, but I think I heard it on the wireless this morning. We want as many children as possible in school, and we want schools to get on with the business of teaching. We want to encourage them to carry on with normal activities. The advice from the Government is for teachers and pupils in secondary schools to wear masks in crowded communal spaces. It is so important that children are in school.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The East Lancashire steam railway in my constituency has the oldest continuously-in-use locomotive shed in the world at Buckley Wells. The redevelopment of this truly historic site would create a mechanical engineering hub, but it requires between £10 million and £12 million of additional funding to achieve that transformative vision. Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the positive contribution to the wider community of steam and heritage railways throughout the country and their potential to deliver a wide range of economic and social benefits?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is not the first to raise at business questions the importance of heritage steam to local history and culture. Over the summer I had the pleasure of being shown around the Etruria Industrial Museum in Stoke by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon). It boasts the world’s only functional steam-powered flint mill, which is a great example of how innovation has played a part in our industrial history.
We were obviously, as a nation, a pioneer in the history of railways, from Brunel and Stephenson, to the modern day, with the enormous £96 billion railway programme announced recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Heritage railways are important and welcome, and I encourage people to enjoy their pleasures, possibly even in Midsomer Norton, which has a very nice heritage railway centre.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
We are in the middle of UK Disability History Month, yet two of the three train stations in Luton, including Leagrave station in my constituency, are completely inaccessible to people with mobility issues. Does the Leader of the House agree with me and with campaigners that it is now time not just for a debate but for action on the situation disabled people face when trying to use train stations in this country? It is time for lifts at Leagrave.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because there was a disability access campaign in my constituency. One of the disadvantages of our industrial heritage is that things were built in the 19th century and early 20th century without the type of access we now take for granted, and retrofitting is an expensive business. I commend her for raising the issue, and I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate. In my experience, things happen when one keeps up the pressure.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I request a statement from the Foreign Secretary on the terrible repeated violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief in Nigeria, with religious minorities being subjected to discrimination, harassment, intimidation, marginalisation and violence? My constituents and I need an assurance that the Government are concerned and appalled by the United States’ decision to remove Nigeria from its list of countries of particular concern, in essence abandoning civilians at a time of escalating terrorist attacks, ignoring the pervasive threat of Boko Haram and shirking its responsibility to the victims of such violence.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right, and the hon. Gentleman campaigns on it very effectively. The UK condemns violence across Nigeria, which has a devastating effect on all communities. The drivers of these different conflicts are complex, localised and relate to a number of factors, including competition for resources and criminality, as well as religious identity.
Unfortunately, since 1776, the actions of the United States Government—although it did not exist then—are not a matter for me at the Dispatch Box, and the hon. Gentleman is trying to invest me with a power I neither have nor wish to claim. However, the UK is a staunch champion of the right to freedom of religion or belief for all. In July 2022, we will host an international ministerial conference to energise collective efforts on this agenda.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Last week I met community development workers from Sheffield Wednesday football club. As the club are pushing to level up back into the Championship on the pitch, their commitment to levelling up communities in my constituency of Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough off the pitch is just as firm. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Sheffield Wednesday for this vital work? What more should the Government do to support such community initiatives?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is a real pleasure, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I would love to congratulate Sheffield Wednesday on their community efforts, which are a reminder of the importance of local football teams to their communities. It is right that the Government should encourage this, and there are various initiatives. Obviously the national lottery is an important part of it, but congratulations to Sheffield Wednesday.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
A constituent recently contacted me desperately seeking help in obtaining a passport for her child. The family are British and live in Greece, where the baby was born, but they need to return to Scotland. Owing to red tape in Greece and delays at the Passport Office, they are currently stranded there, and they are not the only ones. Can we have a debate in Government time on the impact of the delays in issuing passports to British citizens overseas?
Mr Rees-Mogg
If the hon. Lady passes the details to my office, I will make sure they are taken up with the Home Office. There is a hotline, or there certainly used to be a hotline, for MPs to contact the Passport Office. If she and her staff have not used it already, I encourage her to do so.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Last week, Premier League club Brentford FC announced that it is going to retain its home strip for a second season to save the fans money and to reduce the environmental impact of clothing—polyester, in particular, in this case—so will the Leader of the House congratulate Brentford FC? My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) asked him to congratulate clubs such as Sheffield Wednesday and Brentford on their community impact. Will he also congratulate them on their environmental impact?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady because I know what a burden it is for parents to have to buy the new strip every year. The club keeping its strip will be welcomed by fans and particularly young fans’ parents, who will have a significant saving in the run-up to Christmas. I congratulate Brentford FC and encourage it to continue its community activities. It is very impressive that it is doing good environmental work as well, possibly with a small hit to its bottom line, which makes it even more impressive.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Paragraph 8.14 of the ministerial code states that, when Ministers meet external organisations, private secretaries or civil servants must be present and details must be taken down. Recently, we had a debate on the Randox contracts, where there was some confusion from the Minister about exactly whether or not minutes were available. Following that, I wrote to each Department asking how it dealt with such a thing and I received a variety of replies, most of which said that not all meetings needed to be minuted. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time on this issue, so that we can actually get some clarity on this very important matter?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think it is clear that external meetings that relate to Government business are minuted and that is routine civil service practice. But I think the hon. Gentleman has received replies from a large number of Ministers, including from my own office, although I am afraid that my office said that we followed the practice of the Cabinet Office because the Office of the Leader of the House technically comes under the Cabinet Office. But we do take minutes. It is what the civil service does and does very effectively.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Next Friday, I am bringing in a Bill to ban the importing of hunting trophies. The public and all parties, including the Leader of the House’s party, agree on this issue. Last month, I raised it at Prime Minister’s questions and he replied that the Government were going to introduce legislation, but there is still no sign of it. So will the Leader of the House either urgently bring a Bill to the House or tell his Whips not to block my Bill next week, so that we can get a law as soon as possible and end this vile trade once and for all?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Gentleman has asked the Prime Minister and is now asking me. He has asked the organ grinder, and I do not quite know why he has come to the monkey. None the less, the monkey will do his best to say that it is Government policy to ban the importing of hunting trophies and that legislation is likely to come forward in the fullness of time, but there is no specific introduction date.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
In June and in September, I asked the Leader of the House about prioritising research into childhood cancers and he was very helpful both times, following up his and my correspondence to the Department of Health and Social Care on that issue. Despite our chasing up, it took a very disappointing 118 days for the Department to respond to my initial inquiry and, unfortunately, the response, once received, was not worth waiting for; it added nothing about research into childhood cancers and was a grave disappointment to my constituent. Every single day counts for families in this situation and I wonder whether the Leader of the House could provide Government time for a debate on why a clear focus on research into childhood cancers matters so much.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point and, obviously, I am sorry for the delays in replies. I have noticed in terms of my own constituency correspondence that the replies from the DHSC have got much better in the past few weeks—they have become much more prompt. I hope that that is a common experience. She asks for an important debate. I suggest initially that that should be an Adjournment debate to raise the specific questions that she wants to raise, and then she could look to the Backbench Business Committee. This is an issue of great importance. The Government do devote money to investigating cures for childhood cancers, but she is so right to raise the issue.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Last week, in a written statement, the Government ended 31 years of cover-up and admitted that, in August 1990, the Government of the day had sufficient time to warn British Airways not to allow flight 149 to land at Kuwait airport, which was then being over-run by Saddam Hussain. The Government failed to give that warning and, of course, we all know that the passengers and crew were seized and subjected to unspeakable mistreatment for a lengthy time before finally being released. While the written apology last week is welcome, does the Leader of the House not agree that these matters are serious enough to merit at least an oral statement and, ideally, a lengthy debate in Government time, so that the full facts of that dreadful affair can finally be made public?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This matter has been raised in the House before. Governments should always try to put right mistakes that have been made by their predecessor Governments. This Government cannot take responsibility for what was done by Government 31 years ago. However, as we were discussing with Primodos earlier, when Government make mistakes there is no point in a successor Government trying to pretend that it was not a mistake. However, what is done has to be practical and have reasonable effect, so one needs to investigate what would be the benefit of this to work out where to go next. But I think Adjournment debates are a suitable way of starting as specific an issue as this.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
My constituent, Ms Dutton, launched an appeal to a decision to refuse her a European economic area residence card in July 2020. The UK Government withdrew their decision in 2021, meaning that her appeal was successful. However, EEA residence card applications closed on 31 December 2020 and my constituent has never been issued a replacement for her expired biometric card, which overlapped the Government’s decision. Can we have a debate in Government time on the difficulties faced by such constituents over these ridiculous Catch-22 situations?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is exactly the sort of thing where raising it in Parliament ought to solve the problem. I will take this up with the Home Office if the hon. Gentleman will send me more details. There is nothing more frustrating than when the Government say, “We were considering your application. Now you have passed the deadline, so we can’t consider it.” That is something that happens in bureaucratic systems and the great joy of democracy is that we flush bureaucracy away on these occasions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
And the prize for patience and perseverance—
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am not telling you what the prize is. The prize goes to Angus Brendan MacNeil.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is indeed like the wedding feast at Cana.
I thank the Leader of the House for his lambing recess. It is greatly appreciated in Na h-Eileanan an Iar. On an even more serious point, may I ask the him for his help on the UK’s departure from the safety of life navigation system that is the European geostationary navigation overlay service—or EGNOS as it is known. This is affecting airports at Campbeltown, Islay, Tiree, Barra, of course, Wick, Kirkwall, Sumburgh and Dundee. It is especially important in fog and mist and the UK is the only G20 country without such a navigational system. It is still actually switched on in Cardiff and in Glasgow to help Cork in Ireland. Why can Ireland have this and not Scotland? Can we—in the modern parlance—level up with Ireland and have systems that will help us to land in fog and mist?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Yes, of course, he is the wedding feast at Cana, and the fine wine has been saved for last. I now understand the reason he wrote to me about being missed. His point is an important one and I will take it up with the Secretary of State for Transport. We obviously want to have efficient transport across the whole of the United Kingdom, and we particularly need the hon. Gentleman to be able to come here because he does so assiduously and dutifully, and, I think, he wins the prize for finest heckler in the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
There seems to be some dissent on that matter.
Points of Order
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Docherty-Hughes
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before the Leader of the House departs the Chamber, I wonder if he would respond to a point of order relating to what he said in business questions in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) about Scots law. I am sure that he did not mean it to come over the way that it did, but it did seem to some of us that Scots law—whether passed in the Parliament of Scotland or indeed in this House—and its rights and privileges were not being recognised by the Department for Work and Pensions and other Whitehall Departments. I am sure that he would want to correct the record on that point, critically in relation to public health.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a point of order for the Chair. I am not really impartial on the matter of Scots law. If the Lord President wishes to respond, he may do so.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I was absolutely clear that I think it is good and thoroughly beneficial when people go back to work, including in the DWP. I did not mention Scots law; that was not within the remit of my answer.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am not going to continue this matter, as we have a lot of other things to deal with this morning, but I will hear Chris Law.
Chris Law
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am speaking to my own question about my own constituents in the city of Dundee. The Leader of the House made clear his point about DWP staff returning to work. May I ask for your guidance and make it clear to the House that, in fact, throughout the entire pandemic our DWP staff have been working from home, not sitting at home doing nothing? The suggestion made by the Leader of the House may have been seen as implying that my constituents who work for DWP—indeed, for DWP across Scotland—have not been working, when in fact they have been working exceedingly hard, despite the difficulties that they face.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has made his point, although it is not a point of order and I am not going to continue this. There is a difference of opinion here—that is what this Chamber is for—but the period during which we were discussing these things, in business questions, is now over.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Chris Bryant
This is a very different point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that the Government now publish their list of written ministerial statements on the Order Paper. For instance, today it reads:
“Secretary of State for Health and Social Care…Health update”.
The title “Health update” is about as useless as a chocolate teapot, because nobody has any idea what that is about. I mean, I know exactly what this ministerial statement is about—it is about acquired brain injury, and the fact that the Government are going to set up a strategy and a panel to examine the issue—but would it not be a bit more helpful if, when the Government say that they are going to make a statement, they make it a bit clearer what the statement will be about, so that we can find it if we want to?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I cannot help but agree with him, while also saying that it is a matter not for the Chair, but for the Government. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and the Government have heard it. Let us hope that it will be acted upon.
Code of Conduct: Consultation
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now come to the Select Committee statement. Chris Bryant will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and call Mr Bryant to respond to these in turn. The Front Benchers may take part in questioning. I call the Chair of the Committee on Standards.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I do not want to be too pious about it, but the House has a set of rules and seeks to enforce them, first, because all Members aspire to a set of values and principles, and because the public have a right to expect that all Members abide by the highest possible standards in public life. The Committee on Standards has been reviewing these rules for some time. It started doing so in both the 2015 and 2017 Parliaments, but the general elections cut short that work. We have continued to work on it during this Parliament and have had the benefit of some members who have been on the Committee much longer than I have, including some of the lay members, in putting together the report that we compiled last week.
Our report has recommendations that fall into two main sections: suggested changes to the substance of the rules; and questions about the process whereby the rules are enforced and adjudicated. On the substance, we are recommending the following: first, an outright ban on any Member acting as a paid parliamentary adviser, consultant or strategist, which was a recommendation of the 2018 Committee on Standards in Public Life report on Members’ outside interests; secondly, the introduction of a new requirement that a Member must have a written contract for any outside work that makes it explicit that their duties cannot include lobbying Ministers, Members or public officials, or providing advice about how to lobby or influence Parliament, and that their employer will give them an undertaking not to ask them to do so; and thirdly, clarification of the criteria for the “serious wrong” exemption in the lobbying rules, to make clearer the risks of conflicts of interest and to put an end to this being used as a loophole.
Next, we propose a doubling of the six-month limit on reward or consideration restrictions in the lobbying rules to 12 months. Members will still be able to release themselves immediately from the restrictions by repaying any sums received in the relevant period if they wish to do so. In order to encourage Members to seek expert advice before acting, the Committee proposes a new “safe harbour” provision whereby Members cannot be found in breach of the rules if they sought and followed the advice of the House of Commons Registrar. This ensures that Members who seek advice from the Registrar or the House officials and follow the rules accordingly cannot accidentally find themselves in breach of the code of conduct.
We want to end the exemption whereby Ministers are not required to register with the Commons Registrar gifts and hospitality they receive in their ministerial capacity, so that other outside interests of all Members’, whether they are a Minister or not, can be found in a single place. We want to improve the transparency and searchability of the Commons Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and we have written to the House of Commons Commission to try to get it to speed up that process. We also want to add a new rule to the code of conduct prohibiting a Member from subjecting anyone to unreasonable and excessive personal attack in any medium.
In relation to the process of enforcing the rules and adjudicating cases, we have heard the complaints that there is no formal process of appeal at present. We were actually considering this for some time before the Owen Paterson case. We dispute that there is no process of appeal at the moment. Owen Paterson appealed the decision of the Commissioner for Standards to our Committee, and we took his evidence orally and in writing. Indeed, the Prime Minister also appealed the commissioner’s finding in a previous case, and we found in his favour and disagreed with the commissioner.
We have regularly received legal advice that our processes are article 6 compliant, but we accept that there are some blurred lines here. It might be better, for instance, to have a formal appeal process with established grounds of appeal, which might be more legalistic. It might be better if that process were akin to the existing structures for appeals under the independent expert panel that hears independent complaints and grievance scheme cases on sexual harassment and bullying. For that reason, we are engaging a senior judicial figure to advise us on improvements that could be made to provide greater clarity and to ensure that we are following best practice in embodying due process and guaranteeing a fair hearing to all Members and to complainants. We want to explore the pros and cons in detail before making any changes.
This report is not our final word on the subject. We are consulting on our recommendations and urge Members to send us their thoughts. It would be very helpful if there were a debate on the proposals early in the new year, because we may have got things wrong and we are happy to listen to Members. The closing date for written submissions is 20 January. There are some issues that we are considering separately, including the rules on Members’ use of parliamentary stationery, offices and facilities. I get the feeling from quite a lot of Members that it would be helpful if we provided new updated advice and recommendations in that field. We will be holding evidence sessions at the end of January and hope to produce a new draft code of conduct and guide to the rules for approval by the House by Easter. I am sure that the Government would then want to make time available for us to consider that.
Above all, we believe it right that the House should consider these matters in the round rather than piecemeal. The Government and the Opposition have both said that they believe it right that changes should proceed on a cross-party basis. We agree and believe that the best way of doing that is through the formal processes of the Committee.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement, for his calm chairmanship of the Committee through a particularly difficult period, and for the consensual way that he chairs the Committee. Does he agree that it is really now time for some calm deliberation? Although this was a unanimously agreed report, by no means are all the proposals in it unanimously supported by all the members of the Committee. They are proposals for consultation, and he is right to invite evidence. Will he join me in drawing attention to the very useful summary of issues that is on the Committee’s website? Perhaps we should circulate that as a link to all Members.
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that we set out to try to simplify the code of conduct? Does he think we are succeeding in simplifying? Or, by adding more, are we perhaps being drawn dangerously into a zero-sum game, where rules beget rules and more rules beget more rules in an effort to try to clarify, and in fact making it more complicated? I particularly draw attention to section 8 of the report, on “Training, advice and promotion”. That is nothing to do with the enforcement of the code but is about promoting understanding of the purpose of the code and how we can more easily comply with the spirit of the code and avoid falling foul of the rules. What does he think we should do next to pursue that part of our thinking?
Chris Bryant
I am grateful for the work that the hon. Gentleman has done on the Committee. It is right that we take our time to get this right, rather than rush at it like a bull at a gate, because there could be all sorts of unintended consequences, including from some of the recommendations we have come up with. We are very happy to listen. We will be circulating the consultation document to all Members, which I hope will prompt lots more Members to take part in the consultation. The worst thing of all would be that we change the rules and then everyone says next September, “Oh, I did not know we were doing that.” We want to ensure that people can understand them.
On simplification, our rules are quite complex, and Members are caught by lots of different sets of rules, as we lay out in the report, including those of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the Electoral Commission. I am aware that sometimes Members are advised on the use of stationery by a House official, because it is a House responsibility, but that may not be the eventual decision of the commissioner. That is unfair to a Member, so that is why we are introducing the safe harbour provision, which would mean that if someone has taken advice and followed the advice, then fair do’s; they cannot be found guilty of breaching the rules. However, I spent last weekend reading the House of Representatives code of conduct. It is 467 pages long. I think we have done well that ours is not quite as long as theirs.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The report considers interests and voting, but only in the context of a Member’s financial interests and the policy generally. It does not consider whether Members should vote on motions directly relating to them, such as reports on breaches of the code of conduct itself. I am aware that there is a convention that Members should not vote, but that was breached last month by Mr Paterson. I thank the Chair and the Committee for their work in this regard, but can the hon. Gentleman advise me what consideration the Committee has given to putting that convention on a statutory footing within the code of conduct?
Chris Bryant
I am not sure whether the hon. Member means a statutory footing, as in putting it in a piece of statute law. It might be a relevant change to Standing Orders. If she wants to make that recommendation to our Committee, I am sure we would listen to it.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On the issue of natural justice and a fair hearing, as I have said several times recently, all Members of the House, because of article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, are treated differently from every other citizen in the country. I welcome the consultation, but in regard to paragraphs 196, 243 and 244 of the report, will the Chairman accept that there must be full and proper consultation before any judicial figure is appointed, and therefore before his or her report comes about? Otherwise, we will have a prejudgment on the question of fairness, article 6 and all that goes with it and the issue of a fair trial with Members. The person in question must be approved by the House by resolution, and the House must not be bounced.
Chris Bryant
No, I disagree with the hon. Member. There is an issue about appeals, but it is not as simple as he would like to have us suppose. At the moment, a Member who has been found in breach of the rules by the commissioner can effectively appeal to our Committee. They can appeal on any basis whatever—no formal ground of appeal needs to be advanced. We might go to a more formal process, but that might limit a Member’s right to appeal; they might be allowed to appeal only on certain fixed grounds, as happens in most other appellate bodies. Members might think that that ended up leaving them in a worse position, rather than a better one. It is for our Committee to decide who we appoint to advise us. That is the standard way in which every Select Committee of the House works. If the person we are thinking of and are trying to secure ends up taking up the post, I am sure the hon. Member will be happy with the appointment.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I noted that in presenting the report, the Chair of the Committee suggested that it would be useful to have a debate on the issue early in the new year. I wonder if the Leader of the House could give us clarification about whether the Government are intending to provide time for that or whether it is anticipated that the Chair of the Committee will have to apply to the Backbench Business Committee for such a debate. If that is the case, I ask the Chair of the Committee to do so, so we can facilitate that if the Government provide us with time.
Chris Bryant
To be honest, I think the debate should be in Government time for the simple reason that, when we eventually get to a set of motions, they will have to be tabled by the Government. It would make far more sense for it to take place in Government time rather than Backbench Business time. I note that, thus far, there have been moments when the Government have been very involved in the debate and others when they have wanted to withdraw. I ask the Leader of the House whether it is possible to have a debate in Government time early in the new year. The whole Committee would be grateful for that.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I have to say that I disagree with the last remark of the Chair of the Committee, because it is clearly a House matter, so it would be better coming from the Backbench Business Committee.
I certainly welcome the proposal that the advice given is firm advice, even if the advice is wrong and is acted on. That would be a sensible safeguard.
The one area about which I am concerned is the right of appeal. I think there should be an independent right of appeal at the end of the process. In 95% or 98% of referrals, when the Committee makes its decision, the Member accepts it and we move forward, but on the rare occasions when the Member feels badly done by, there should be, as in other organisations, a right of appeal to a completely independent organisation. I wonder whether the Chair of the Committee would take that view on board in the consultation, because it is probably the only bit that I disagree with.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing with nearly all of it. Personally, and I think this is true for the rest of the Committee, I do not have a final fixed view on how we should implement appeals. The issue will arise, however, that one of the available sanctions is suspension from the House—or expulsion, for that matter—and historically, it has been the House’s view that that has to be a decision of the House rather than of any separate body. That is why, even in ICGS cases on sexual harassment and bullying, where there is an appeals process and the whole process goes through an independent expert panel, the final decision is none the less taken in the House. The hon. Gentleman knows—I think he voted for my amendment—that the motion comes straight from the IEP to the House and is voted through without amendment or debate. That is my only caveat to what he has said about appeals.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that he and his Committee are doing to uphold Parliament’s reputation. At present, Ministers do not have to declare gifts or hospitality received in their ministerial capacity, whereas we MPs are required to. Will he comment on that distinction, which appears perverse to most of our constituents?
Chris Bryant
Incidentally, I am not right honourable, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. I have a view about that; I am not sure whether it will end up being the settled view of the House. It seems illogical to me that two Members of the House, one of whom is a Minister, could be wined and dined at Wimbledon on a ticket that costs £2,500, then the Minister does not have to register that with the House and never has to register its value, even though they might be the Minister who makes decisions about tennis funding in the UK, whereas the Member who is not a Minister has to register it within 28 days. It seems perverse, and it is difficult for members of the public, who might want to see all the information about an individual MP in one place.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
May I refer the Chairman to paragraph 58 on page 19 of the report? I take the point he has made very clearly that these are proposals for consultation and could be changed. However, the paragraph says:
“We therefore support the addition to the Code of a rule similar to those adopted by the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly, making it an investigable breach of the Code for a Member to subject anyone to unreasonable and excessive personal attack in any medium”,
which presumably includes the Chamber and Select Committees. [Interruption.] Well, if we read it literally, that is how we would interpret it.
Let me give the Chairman a quick scenario. In a Select Committee, a Member is pressing a witness, maybe about some Government procurement programme that has gone horribly wrong, and they are reluctant to answer. The member of the Committee, doing their job, presses them harder, and the witness says, “I’m sorry, but I regard your behaviour as an unreasonable and excessive personal attack, and if you continue this line of questioning I’m going to report you to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.” To take another example—this is important, Madam Deputy Speaker—Member A and Member B have a heated disagreement in the Chamber, and someone watching on television writes to the commissioner and says, “I think A made an excessive personal attack on B, and I want you to investigate it.”
The point is that this paragraph seriously impinges on article 9 of the Bill of Rights, if we take it literally, so here is my consultation submission early on: this is actually dangerous, and it should not appear in the final version.
Chris Bryant
I disagree with the right hon. Member’s interpretation of where we are going, not least because I think article IX is perfectly clear that no proceeding in Parliament should be impeached or questioned in a court of law or in any other place.
Chris Bryant
No. That has the force of statute law—the Bill of Rights is statute law—and we are not intending to derogate from that in any way at all. The Chair of a Select Committee at the moment could perfectly well say to an hon. Member, if he or she thought that the hon. Member was being excessively or unreasonably rude or personal towards a witness, “Let’s tone that down a little bit, shall we?” I think it would be in the interests of the House and its reputation for the Select Committee Chair to say that, and it is perfectly within their powers now. Indeed, in the work we have been doing in the Privileges Committee, we have been looking at how witnesses should be treated.
It may be that this rule is not perfectly worded as it is now. None the less—and, again, this is me on a personal level—it just seems odd that we would want to argue that we have to continue the right to make unreasonable and excessive personal attacks on others, especially when we are using the reputation of the letters “MP” behind it.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I thank the Chair of the Committee on Standards and his colleagues for all the work they have done. I also warmly commend the Chair for the way he has conducted himself over the last month or so, which has possibly been the most difficult period that anyone in his office has had to deal with.
I welcome the proposals on the declaration of Ministers’ interests, because my constituents cannot understand how it can be that a Minister, who must be a Member of one or other House of Parliament, enjoys all the rights of a Member of Parliament but does not have to comply with all the responsibilities that the rest of us do. Are there opportunities to take that further? For example, are there ways in which the conduct of a Minister can also be deemed to be the conduct of a Member of Parliament, and therefore, possibly as an alternative, subject to independent examination, rather than the picture we have just now, where the ultimate arbiter of a Minister’s conduct is the person who appointed them, who quite clearly has a significant political interest in the fate of any Minister whose conduct has been called into question?
Chris Bryant
I think that the questions asked thus far have made it evident that we need a full debate so that people can make speeches. The sooner we have that in the new year the better, and I will listen to all the comments people make.
I have lots of views about the ministerial code, but it is not the business of our Committee to have views about the ministerial code. That is a matter for another Committee, and we have touched on it only tangentially. As it happens, however, it does seem odd to me that a series of actions by a Member could get them taken through the ICGS process for bullying, but if done as a Minister within their Department would lead to no sanction whatsoever. In the end, I think that brings the whole of politics into disrepute. However, as I say, that is not a matter for the code of conduct. We are only interested in regulating Members’ performance in their duties as Members.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I reiterate that these are supposed to be fairly short, concise questions, including from the Front Bench. Debates will come later.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and his Committee on a very good and worthwhile report. He is right that all the issues need to be properly debated, and we should be able to do that as soon as possible. This report has been constructed and designed in the white heat of unprecedented public interest in the standards of this House, which I am sure has added to the pressure of his deliberations over the past few weeks. I have a number of issues with it, which we do not have time to go into now—that is why we need a debate. I will discuss the matter privately with him, and I know he will be open to that meeting, because there are certain things I want to get clarity on.
One thing I ask the hon. Gentleman about at this stage is appeals. With all due respect, I think he has been pushed into this by Conservative Back Benchers and because of the very keen interest in how the debates have been shaped over the past few weeks. He is absolutely right, and he should stick to this, that what his Committee does is an appeals process. That is exactly what happens. I have great concerns about this being conflated—
Pete Wishart
I thought I had a minute, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is that not right?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
They are supposed to be fairly short questions, including from the Front Bench.
Pete Wishart
All I will say is to be careful about conflating this process with sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is significantly different from conduct on propriety, and we have to be careful not to conflate the two. I know the staff are concerned about that, so, as an early point, I ask the hon. Member for Rhondda to think very carefully about bringing those two things together. They are significantly different.
Chris Bryant
Sir Stephen Irwin, who, as hon. Members will know, chairs the independent expert panel, came and gave us advice on this whole issue of appeals. One of the points he made to us was that of course it makes sense to have a set of people on the independent expert panel who are experienced in sexual harassment, employment and bullying cases—lawyers, in the main, and their kin—because they are dealing with sexual harassment and bullying cases, and sexual harassment and bullying are the same in any workplace. There is no difference, and they do not need to have particular parliamentary understanding.
However, when we are dealing with things such as parliamentary stationery, use of offices and paid lobbying, Sir Stephen’s view was that there is a significant benefit to having a body that has some laypeople with some of that experience and some Members of Parliament. I think other members of the Committee would admit that it is quite interesting that lay members often say, after a Member has made a contribution, “That’s interesting—I would never have seen that or had that insight into how Parliament works.”
I think we will want to keep that mix in some shape or form, but we will be able to clarify the situation and get rid of some of the blurred lines, so that everybody has equal confidence. I do not like the idea that there might be some people still saying at the end of the process, “No, there is no appeal process.” We want to ensure that everybody is confident in the processes we have.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I have one question, but first I must congratulate my hon. Friend and his Committee on excellent, thoughtful work. I am particularly pleased with paragraphs 15 and 16, stating that values are something we should incorporate into our daily lives—something to be proud of rather than something to be wriggled round.
My one question is about paragraph 120. Could my hon. Friend elaborate on the work his Committee is planning to do on accepting gifts from foreign donors? This is about whether there should ever be circumstances in which a Member should accept a gift, hospitality or money from a foreign Government. Can he say a bit more about that? I know there is concern from both outside and inside this place about how those boundaries are drawn.
Chris Bryant
Interestingly, in the United States of America no member of Congress is allowed to accept anything from a foreign Government at all. That includes visits to foreign countries; if there is a visit, it is paid for by Congress, not by the other Government. I know there has been some expression of concern, particularly in relation to some of the all-party parliamentary groups, about whether it is right that British MPs are being lavishly entertained—I say this as someone who has just come back from Qatar, and Qatar paid for my trip; that is all declared—and whether it might not be better for us simply to say as a House, “If we really want to have strong relationships with those other Governments, we should be paying for those visits.” It is important to do that work, but we ought to be cognisant of the danger that a foreign power might be seeking to lobby the British Parliament through the back door. We will be doing work on that as part of our ongoing inquiry into all-party parliamentary groups.
BILL PRESENTED
Ambulance Waiting Times (Local Reporting) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57).
Daisy Cooper, supported by Ed Davey, Wendy Chamberlain, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Tim Farron, Layla Moran, Jamie Stone, Wera Hobhouse, Christine Jardine, Sarah Olney, Munira Wilson and Sarah Green, presented a Bill to require ambulance services to provide more accessible and localised reports of ambulance response times; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 209).
Backbench Business
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Stability and Peace
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the concerning political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina; expresses its support for institutions set out in the Dayton Peace Agreement, and the office and work of the High Representative, Mr Christian Schmidt; and supports continued efforts by the UK Government and its allies to ensure peace and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to uphold the provisions of the Dayton Peace Agreement.
Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not inevitable, yet today we find ourselves closer than ever to conflict in the Balkans. We see the rise of hatred, division, sectarianism and the ugly beast of nationalism. We see fears rising, and still-raw wounds being ripped open. That is why I have called for today’s debate.
I believe that all of us in this place have one common responsibility as parliamentarians, to protect our nation, but we also share the responsibility to seek to prevent loss of life and to uphold human rights. With the resolve of once-stalwart partners now in question, now more than ever Britain, and we in this place, must stand up and be counted.
More than 26 years ago, the same hatred, sectarianism and nationalism brought bloodshed to Bosnia. More than 8,000 Muslim men and boys were massacred, women were systematically raped and the lives of more than 100,000 people were taken in a war led by greed and inhumanity. In that war, 57 British soldiers were murdered. I stand here today because that loss of life, those murders and attempted extermination of the Bosniak people, cannot be repeated, and because those whose voices were stolen deserve that we should learn from their silence.
We are here today because peace in Bosnia is under threat, but conflict is not inevitable, and this House can make a difference. Deterrence diplomacy can make a difference. Today we seek to raise our voices to help prevent loss of life, and to uphold human rights and peace, because Britain and this House have an opportunity to prevent history from repeating itself.
Some 26 years ago, the international community secured a fragile truce. The Dayton peace agreement was signed, and in Bosnia a shot has not been fired in anger since. Bloodshed gave way to peace—a fragile peace, but a peace that prevented further loss of life. Over the past few months, however, the leader of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, has put the Dayton peace agreement under enormous strain. He has long worked to systematically undermine the very instruments of stability that he is mandated, as the Serb member of the presidency, to protect.
Dodik has publicly repudiated the Office of the United Nations peacekeeper-in-chief, the UN High Representative, threatened to withdraw Republika Srpska from federal institutions and threatened to withdraw Bosnian Serbs from the armed forces, the judiciary and the police forces. Meanwhile he is significantly increasing military spending, militarising the police force and holding illegal independence day celebrations, showing off vast arrays of submachine guns.
What instigated the crisis we now see unfolding? Ultimately, it was Dodik’s refusal to stop his shameful and insidious campaign of genocide denial and glorification of war criminals. In July, the then High Representative banned the denial of the genocide that took place at Srebrenica. The war crimes that took place during the Bosnian war, and in particular in Srebrenica, are the most heinous committed on European soil since the second world war.
Under Milošević, the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia was industrial and the motive clear: extermination. I believe that this House is united in agreeing that what took place was a genocide. It is important that we say so here in this place, the mother of all Parliaments, and that the UK and our Parliament give the High Representative our full support in ensuring any genocide denial law is implemented. Amid that backdrop, I hope it is already abundantly clear to Members why the Dayton peace agreement must be upheld.
Some have rightly noted that the Dayton peace agreement merely froze the results of the ethnic cleansing, and did not represent a true healing. We have probably all asked ourselves whether there should be a redrawing of the lines if that would bring down tensions, but it would be a grievous error. That would be to give ethno-nationalism, hatred, and ethnic cleansing a victory, to say that communities cannot co-exist, that we will reward division and hatred as forms of negotiation, and that the policies of ethnic cleansing in the ‘90s were not only successful, but are now being mandated. I am deeply concerned about reports that there is a growing view or opinion in Brussels, and even in America, that Bosnia and Herzegovina should be split, and the Republika Srpska allowed to secede. If that is true, it is entirely contrary to the Dayton peace agreement, and contrary to our principles that we share as members of the international community. It would, in effect, enshrine the results of 1990s ethnic cleansing.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate, and I agree with what she is saying about not redrawing boundaries that have now been established for more than 25 years. Does she recognise that one way that we can perhaps try to evolve the Dayton agreement is through trying to build up civil society in Bosnia, particularly on a multi-ethnic basis, and to encourage and support those voices to come together and try to create more of a shared vision for Bosnia in its entirety as a single entity?
Alicia Kearns
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but I had a chilling conversation this morning with the UN High Representative, who joins us today from the Gallery. He said that civil society is not where it should be, that it is chilling how divided it is, and how it is not able to bring people together. But yes, the Foreign Office should be looking at exactly how we support civil society, as should all our allies.
There have been increasing noises that the EU will also accept negotiation on genocide denial and electoral law, accommodating Dodik’s appalling undermining of state institutions and stability. I hope the House will join me in condemning those sentiments without qualification, and that the Minister will make representations to her European Union counterparts that any such split would be unacceptable. No deal can be done as long as the threat of secession is used as a bargaining chip. I wish also to acknowledge that Dodik does not have unanimous support for his behaviour, and it is important that we do not internationally accept his position as representative of the will of Serbs and Bosnian Serbs. There is opposition. Only a couple of weeks ago he tried to pass laws that would undermine the Dayton agreement, and his majority unravelled.
Before I turn to my asks of the Minister, I wish to thank her, as well as my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary, for their engagement on this situation over the last two months, and I put on record the alacrity with which they have responded to the concerns raised. I commend them for inviting the High Representative, Christian Schmidt, to the UK, for putting Bosnia on the agenda at the NATO ministerial meeting in Riga this week, for arranging two ministerial visits to Bosnia just this week, and for announcing this morning a special envoy for the western Balkans. But I now turn to my further asks, and I urge the Minister to build on that track record urgently and raise the situation with her American counterparts who, only this morning for the first time, tweeted their concerns about this issue. Yes, it is just a tweet, but words and diplomacy matter.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about international diplomacy. Does she agree that obviously we need to put pressure on our allies in America, but we also need to stand up to those in the wider world who are using the situation in Bosnia as a pawn or bargaining chip in a greater play? We must ensure that those countries hear the voice of this Chamber, and of all those in western Europe who would like to see stability maintained in the western Balkans.
Alicia Kearns
My hon. Friend puts it well, and I hope I can shortly make the same point as elegantly as he did.
Some 73% of Republika Srpska exports go to the EU, so the UK and our EU partners can work to impose multilateral sanctions in line with those of our American allies. Even minimalist sanctions would have an impact, because we cannot accept a situation where pro-integrity forces are told that efforts to undermine the peace will serve to further a negotiating position. Part of the reason we are where we are today is a lack of clear, unambiguous pushback against secessionist politics from the international community. If we do not push back now, Dodik and his enablers will be emboldened to escalate. The time for deterrence diplomacy is now. We talk about deterrence in terms of military interventions, but deterrence can be a diplomatic effort, and that is something the UK should lead on.
The UK is also one of the world’s best conveners—I would say it is second to none when it comes to foreign policy—so I hope the Government will use the immense expertise in the Foreign Office to secure multilateral engagement and commitments to de-escalate, by convening the NATO Quint and G7 Foreign Ministers, and by raising the issue at the UN Security Council, to demonstrate that diplomacy can be an effective deterrent.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I totally endorse what my hon. Friend is saying, but could I perhaps encourage her to amplify this point? I get a sense of déjà-vu from 30 years ago, when we looked the other way for too long, but involvement became inevitable. Will she emphasise that the timeliness and promptness of an intervention is all the more important?
Alicia Kearns
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why this debate is so important. We as parliamentarians can raise the flare and ask the international community to sit up and take action now, not wait until the first shot is fired.
I ask that when the Minister convenes the Quint, the G7, or UN partners, we seek to secure an uplift to our personnel at NATO HQ Sarajevo. A joint exercise in the Balkans would also have much merit. As ethnic tensions rise, I ask that the UK activates the new conflict centre for which I lobbied and campaigned. It would map actors, identify those perpetrating identity-based violence, look at what multilateral activity is needed to prevent conflict, and act as an early warning system. I urge the Government to create a cross-Government, counter-atrocity strategy for what is happening in Bosnia, as well as in China and so many other places. Indeed, the Prime Minister has received an excellent letter about that from Protection Approaches, which is a fantastic charity. We need a strategy that would allow us to identify emerging tensions and early signs of human rights abuses, and trigger action before mass bloodshed.
One might ask why Dodik feels so emboldened to act in this way. When threatening the secession of Republika Srpska, Dodik stated:
“If anybody tries to stop us, we have friends who will defend us.”
Those friends—they say you should judge a man by his friends—are Russia, Serbia, China, and even a handful of EU member states. Dodik himself has named Hungary, Slovenia, and even, in his words, “the Brussels Administration” as having an understanding of his position. Some of those hostile states are using their influence to foment instability and ethnic tension, to distract from their own heinous actions at home, to secure their own territorial ambitions, or to feed instability in Europe’s near neighbourhood.
Dodik has stated publicly:
“When I go to Putin there are no requests. He just says, ‘what is it I can help with?’”
At this moment, Dodik is with Putin in Russia. I fear what he is asking, and clearly he will receive whatever he asks for. In the last few years, Putin has delivered semi- automatic weapons to Republika Srpska—2,500 to be exact, that we know of. He has sent his paramilitary motorcycle gang, known as the Night Wolves, to bring pro-secessionist messages to the streets of Bosnia. China has steadily increased its presence, and Bosnia’s international debt is now held by China. If we do not support Bosnia, it will find itself in the same situation as Montenegro—indebted, and facing the reality of China’s wolf warrior diplomacy as its loans become due next year. Dodik must learn that Bosnia also has friends, with none more committed to Bosnia’s stability than the UK. We must use deterrence diplomacy to demonstrate our resolve, and to stop autocrats making our neighbourhood their playground.
I ask the Minister to ensure that we engage with Serbia, and call on it to stop telling us behind the scenes that it wishes to prevent conflict and division, while in the same breath giving Dodik platform after platform. We must engage heavily with western Balkan nations to demonstrate that our eye is firmly on the region, and we must counter Russian and Chinese overtures towards them.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for her brilliant speech. In light of all the threats that Bosnia and Herzegovina is facing, would it help if we helped to facilitate Bosnia joining NATO?
Alicia Kearns
The hon. Gentleman will be unsurprised to know that I fully agree we should be doing that. However, we must also recognise that that is one of Russia’s greatest concerns and fears, and that is why it is acting to undermine in such a way. Yes, NATO membership is more achievable that EU membership, so let us stand and fight for that.
We know that as part of their support to Dodik, the Russians and even the Chinese and the Serbians are spreading disinformation in Bosnia. The UK is a world leader in countering disinformation, particularly that of Putin. During my time in the Foreign Office, we exposed his devious disinformation networks, knocked him off balance and countered his lies. As a result, I am on a no-fly list. I take that as success. We know how to counter Russia’s disinformation and we should be doing more of it, so I urge the Minister to consider establishing a NATO counter-disinformation capability at NATO headquarters in Sarajevo.
There is a cost to inaction. That cost would be felt in Bosnia, throughout Europe and most certainly here in the UK, and it would be felt by our veterans, who gave so much and witnessed appalling atrocities while serving in Bosnia. Were conflict to reignite between communities in Bosnia, I can think of no greater recruiting sergeant for the far right or Islamists across the world. As in the 1990s, bloodshed would displace thousands of people, and we would need to respond with boots on the ground. Peace in Bosnia is not just a moral imperative but a security necessity for all of us in this place.
I am heartened to see so many colleagues here today—we are united in our resolve—and I thank them all. I am grateful that so many took the time this morning to meet the High Representative to show our support for his office and the work of the international community.
In 1992, the world moved too slowly. Three years of bloodshed stained the western Balkans and our collective conscience. It was a failure of the international community then, and we cannot accept a failure of the international community now. As we establish ourselves as global Britain, let us make one of our great acts of foreign policy to de-escalate tensions in the Balkans. Let us prove what we as the United Kingdom can do. I hope that by speaking with a clear voice today, our Parliament is making it clear that we stand by our duty to the people of Bosnia, that peace in Bosnia will remain a priority for us, that the time for deterrence diplomacy is now, and that violence in Bosnia is most certainly not inevitable.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. As colleagues will see, this is a very well subscribed debate. I would prefer not to introduce a time limit, but I urge contributors to take approximately six minutes, or slightly less, so that we can get everybody in.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I take note of your suggestion, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In October 2013, I visited Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Inter-Parliamentary Union; my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was with us. Before the visit, I travelled across the western Balkans from Dubrovnik to Sarajevo. The winding journey through the mountains was incredible—the scenery was spectacular—but the number of graves in every community we went through was really striking. It was truly horrific.
When I arrived in Sarajevo, I was met by a young woman Government official, who greeted me with some surprise because I was getting off a bus. She took me to the Government headquarters, and I was making polite conversation with her. I asked her simply what the civil war in the early 1990s meant for her. She showed me the wound on her leg and explained that she had been shot by a sniper when she was a small child. That is what the conflict meant for her. That illustrates better than anything I can think of just how horrific the situation was in the former Yugoslavia. As internationalists—as people who are concerned about justice, life and civility—we must make every effort possible to ensure that similar situations never happen again.
In recent times, the UK—unfortunately, in my view—has not been as proactive in the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina as it might have been. I am pleased to say, however, that things may be changing. I welcome the Government’s announcement of the appointment of Sir Stuart Peach as special envoy. That is a positive statement and a real contribution to ensuring that many of the problems that the people of Bosnia currently face will be addressed. I am pleased that his brief appears to be wide—to support the civil institutions, to work with others in the area, and to make sure that the British Government give a firm commitment to do everything possible to stabilise and hopefully improve the situation.
There is no doubt that the challenges that the international community and the people of Bosnia face are huge. We must begin thinking about the situation with the Dayton agreement, which we played a significant role in helping to establish. It is clearly inadequate to take the situation forward, and we need to begin to think about how that agreement could be modified, possibly even going as far as a Dayton II agreement.
We also need to reinforce our commitment to practical peacekeeping in Bosnia. There is the European Union force—although we are not members of the EU any more, we still support EUFOR—but we really have to ask whether 600 to 700 personnel on the ground is sufficient, given the gravity of the situation we now face and bearing mind that at one time there were 30,000 soldiers from the western alliance on the ground.
We must realise, too, that the stakes are extremely high. If the situation in Bosnia deteriorates significantly, it will not just be bad for Bosnia itself; it will be bad for the whole of the western Balkans, and there will be repercussions elsewhere.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) said, Putin is the common factor in destabilising Belarus, Ukraine and Bosnia. Just as we support them, should we not also make it clear to the Serbs that if they continue to destabilise and to help Putin, EU membership will remain a distant dream for them?
Wayne David
Yes, I think we have to be objectively very critical of a number of players in the area. Russia is, of course, destabilising the situation for its own ends—as, indeed, it is doing elsewhere—and I think the House will be united in condemnation of its efforts. However, other countries leave a lot to be desired in their activities too; the hon. Member correctly refers to Serbia. We need to be determined in saying to our friends and allies that we do not expect that kind of behaviour, and we really have to work together as an international community to stabilise the situation and take things forward.
However, it is important to recognise that the main external disruptor is indeed Russia. We have to be very clear with Russia, in a whole host of ways and in different spheres, that its material efforts at destabilisation are totally unacceptable. We realise what is happening, we will not have the wool pulled over our eyes, and we must stand united against its destabilisation efforts.
It is extremely important that this debate is taking place today and that a powerful and united message is sent from all democrats and peace lovers in this House, right across the Chamber. But a debate is not enough; we need to make sure, dare I say it, that our Government are wholeheartedly involved and using their maximum diplomatic and material effort to stabilise the situation. It is important, too, that we do not see this as a one-off debate but that we maintain our interest and concern so that we have a genuine, long-lasting peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I deployed in September 1992 with 900 men and some women to save lives. We were neutral. We were cast into the middle of a war between three basic sides, not including the mafia. Bosnian Serbs were fighting Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims. Bosnian Muslims were fighting Bosnian Serbs and sometimes Bosnian Croats. Bosnian Croats were fighting Bosnian Serbs and occasionally Bosnian Muslims. We have to avoid that happening again. We were sent there to try to give Bosnia a chance. We managed to save quite a number of people, for example in April 1993 we led on pulling out about 2,000 people from Srebrenica three years before the disaster of July 1995, but we failed to save many others, so, in my view, it was not a success.
What is pertinent to this debate is the fact that I witnessed a political solution, the Vance-Owen plan, which the Bosnian Croats immediately tried to put into action by trying to take out a town called Gornji Vakuf. I watched as the Brigadier General of the Bosnian-Croat army tasked his tanks to fire one round at each house, one after the other, destroying the town piecemeal. I spent three weeks personally trying to stop that fighting, at some cost—my escort driver was killed. The lesson for me was that having a political solution that starts dividing Bosnia is asking for real trouble, so it must not happen.
I left in May 1993, but the war ground on. There was political indecision and a lack of will among Europeans, the Americans and the United Nations. It ground on until that awful genocide of Srebrenica in July 1995, when 8,372 men and boys were murdered by the Bosnian Serb army—by the way, the same Bosnian Serb army that might want to split away. Srebrenica was the catalyst for Dayton. The Dayton peace accords—thank goodness it happened—achieved its primary end: it stopped the war.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), no one has been shot or blown up in Bosnia since—I am sure they have, but to our knowledge they have not—but it was lousy politics, because it set up a very weak country and a very weak Government, with three Presidents in rotation representing each side for eight months, and it did not work. Dayton was meant to last for only a short while. Look how long it has had to exist. Now, we have this Bosnian Serb, Dodik, who is threatening to take Republika Srpska out of Bosnia.
I was very friendly with the late Lord Paddy Ashdown. Paddy told me a story about having dinner with Franjo Tuđman, the President of Croatia, in May 1995 at the Guildhall in London. Paddy said to Tuđman, “How do you see the future of Bosnia in 10 years’ time?” Tuđman grabbed a menu, drew a map of Bosnia and divided it in half: half Serb, half Croat. Paddy asked, “What is going to happen to the Bosnian Muslims?” Tuđman said, “Well, maybe a small section in a Croatian area.” By the way, they are all south Slav. Everyone is a south Slav, but by religion they are 30% Serb, 15% Croat and over 50% Bosnian Muslim—1.8 million people. Bosnia matters to us, because if the Croats and the Serbs divide the country in half, guess what will happen to 1.8 million people. They are going to be on the road. They will not be looking east, but north and west. It matters to us what happens in Bosnia.
John Nicolson
As the right hon. and gallant Member knows, as a BBC presenter I interviewed him many times at that time. He mentioned a number of times the secession of the Bosnian Serb part of Bosnia. If they pull out their troops from the joint army and set up their own army, that surely takes us right back to the time that he was there. It is a clear breach of the Dayton accords. It arms them and makes them dangerous. That should be our line in the sand, surely?
Bob Stewart
I agree.
There are two lessons: dividing Bosnia will not work; and the only way to get a solution in Bosnia is by robust international actions. So what will we do? Let me finish by making four points.
First, we have to sustain Dayton at least until we get something to replace it or help it. Secondly, Mr Christian Schmidt, who is sitting here today, requires our absolute and unequivocal support. He must be given all the power we can provide for him to stop the country going backwards. We need another Dayton, which some have called Dayton II. We need the involvement of the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Russia, which is playing hard to get, and Serbia. And, of course, in any Dayton II we require the presence of the Bosnian Serbs, because they were not there at Dayton I. I expect—I hope that the Minister is listening to me carefully—the UK to lead on sorting this out.
My final point is this: we must be prepared to send in our soldiers to save lives. That is what we did before: save lives. Fifty-seven of our soldiers died. One of them, Lance Corporal Wayne Edwards, was my driver. That does not count Dobrila Kolaba, my wonderful interpreter who was killed. Minister, it is over to you. The UK must lead and sort out this problem. We can do it.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who made an excellent speech, as did the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns).
I was the Minister with responsibility for the south Balkans back in the mid-’90s. The war had finished, but it was close enough to see the damage. I have one personal reflection. I travelled to Srebrenica with British troops, who were necessary as an escort because the situation was still fraught. When an elderly Bosniak Muslim couple returned to Srebrenica, the town of their birth where they had not been for some time, they needed British troops to make sure they were safe from those who could have done them harm. Anybody who travelled to Sarajevo and looked up to the hills, where Republika Srpska is, knew that Republika Srpska had the capacity to do damage to the people of Sarajevo on a daily basis. It happened, and the massacre of innocents was a regular event. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) told the story of a woman who survived with injuries, but many died as well. We cannot go back to that kind of conflict, and the level of nationalism is dangerous.
In 1990, the beat of nationalism in the Balkans was strong—there was Tuđman in Croatia and Milošević in what became Serbia—but we ignored it, because we did not believe that we would see the conflict that ensued. The beat of nationalism is now coming very strongly from Banja Luka, from Prime Minister Dodik, who ironically—at the time when I knew him, years back—was a moderate looking for the movement of Bosnia and Herzegovina into the European Union. At that time, we were a member of the European Union and were able to offer the illusory prospect of movement towards central European institutions, but we have never been prepared, as Europe, to bring that into a transition.
Dayton was temporary; it was never meant to be permanent. The world lost interest in the western Balkans. We did as well—Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments—and, as the High Representative said recently, 10 years have gone by without our paying attention to the situation in Bosnia. We have to ensure that there is a medium and long-term strategy on Bosnia. The right hon. Member for Beckenham is right that we need to look at Dayton II, but that is not immediate. It has to happen, but we need to do the groundwork. That involves saying, “We are committed to a multi-ethnic state; we demand that that idea continues.” There can be no redrawing of the boundaries of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That cannot happen.
Bob Stewart
If we cannot have Dayton II soon, we must totally support the High Representative and his actions, and all countries should say that clearly.
Tony Lloyd
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; I agree firmly. Let us not rush into Dayton II. It has to happen and the participants on the ground have to be there, but let us do the groundwork. He is also right that we empowered Paddy Ashdown to operate as a powerful UN High Representative. We are not empowering the High Representative now and we have to return to giving that kind of power to him.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I completely agree with the points that my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) made. It seems that one of the problems, which has got worse since my first visit in 2003 and my second in 2013, is that much as we would want to create a multi-ethnic, multi-denominational constitution and structure, a lot of people’s daily lives are spent in a separate silo. Their education, healthcare and so many different elements of their lives are effectively pulling them apart. That is why we need to recreate the whole of society in a multi-denominational way.
Tony Lloyd
I do not disagree, but look at the progress we have and have not made in Northern Ireland. This takes time, but it is a real issue. That is why we cannot let Bosnia and Herzegovina disappear off the radar again as other crises move in and out. Belarus matters—as the Minister knows, I am deeply involved in Belarus—and I can name conflicts all around the world, but this issue in the western Balkans also matters.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the role he played as shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In the light of the comparison that he is making, it is worth stressing that there are similarities with the Good Friday agreement, which did lock in identity back in 1998, and to some extent, has not evolved, as Dayton also has not. However, the key issue is how we build up the civil society and try to create the overall sense of a Bosnian identity and work on shared and integrated education and other areas that he supported Northern Ireland in during his time in post.
Tony Lloyd
I am grateful for that intervention because my hon. Friend leads me on to my next point, which is a simple one. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said, importantly, that Dodik is not the voice of every Bosnian Serb. We have to make sure that we speak to the majority of Bosnian Serbs and say, “There is a different future. It is not Russia—it is not with Moscow. It is not even with the mad voices coming from across the border in Serbia. It is something very different.” But we have to give the incentives that we promised but never delivered on, and we have to think seriously about what that means. We cannot offer European Union membership—it is not in our gift—but we can think about NATO, which is certainly a possibility, although NATO cannot interfere in internal conflicts in any easy way. However, there has to be conversation with the decent people among the Bosnian Serbs to make sure that they can see a better future that eschews the kind of nationalist rhetoric that will damage them and permanently lock Bosnia and Herzegovina into a past that is unthinkable and deny it a future that is possible.
There are big things to play for. This debate is an important part of that. Let us give the very clear message that we do care. We will not go away. We want the Bosnian Serbs to work with the Croats and the Bosniaks to guarantee that future. Yes, let us rethink the structure around Dayton in as short a time as we can. Let us make sure, if necessary, that we sanction the individuals, such as Dodik, who would do harm. And let us make sure that we simply do not let this disappear once again from the agenda.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I remind hon. Members that if we are going to get everybody in, we need to stick to six-minute speeches.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I very much welcome the points made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), and I wholeheartedly agree with them, except for one: I think it is NATO’s job not to interfere in the internal affairs of a state but, if invited to secure the security of that state—and we feel we can do that—to make an offer to it to save it from conflagration. I will come back to that. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this debate, on the very knowledgeable way in which she introduced the topic and on the passionate way that she spoke. I have wonderful words in my prepared speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, but in the interests of brevity, I shall cast aside my beautiful turns of phrase and say what I think needs to be said.
I think there are only three Members here this afternoon who sat through the 1992 to 1997 Parliament. We heard Paddy Ashdown every week at Prime Minister’s Question Time—it was twice a week then—asking questions on what we were going to do about the Balkans crisis. I have to say, I am one of the guilty ones who sat on the Government Benches and thought that he had become obsessed with something that we could not do anything about or should not get involved with. But he was right. It was only when the bread queues in Sarajevo were being shelled by the Serbians that we began to realise that something terrible was happening in our own continent.
I happened to make a visit, I think with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, to NATO, and I heard the then Supreme Allied Commander of NATO describe this as the biggest security failure in the European continent since the second world war. We began to wake up to the fact that something terrible was happening. What had gone wrong? My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said that we are repeating the same mistakes as we did in the early 1990s. Oh yes we are.
First, there is complacency. Secondly, there are different voices. We talk about the European Union, but the European Union has different voices. Different countries have different approaches. I am afraid that the German Government are pretty ambivalent at the moment about whether the Bosnian state should be secured permanently. The French have always had a stronger relationship with the Serbs than with any other part of the Balkans. The United States now, as it did then, feel that this was a post-cold war European security problem that it should not get involved with. And then there was some precipitate action by an external actor, Germany—the recognition of Croatia, I think in 1990—that triggered the whole Balkan crisis. It took years before it was understood what we had to do—we tried an air campaign, which did not succeed, and we had to put troops on the ground to stop the fighting—but at least when we got in there and did it, we got an agreement.
We got the agreement with tacit Russian co-operation—Russia did not prevent it. This time, Russia is a player in the conflict. It is stoking the ethnic tensions and encouraging the separatists and the break-up of the state, because I imagine Putin regards it as in his national interest to see 1.8 million Bosnian refugees flooding into Europe when western Europe is already facing a refugee crisis. He would love that, and the Chinese are helping, too.
What are we going to do? Are we just going to carry on pussyfooting around? The solution is for EUFOR, which is a small European Union force, to be reinforced very substantially, now. I differ from the hon. Member for Rochdale on this point: I think that if the Bosnian Government requested that, NATO would have to respond. However, that would require persuading the United States’ Mr President Biden, who has become far more isolationist and unhelpful to NATO. I have no brief for Trump, but at least Trump managed to get us all to spend more money; Biden looks completely disinterested from foreign wars. He has to become interested. Just as Clinton started from that position—
Alicia Kearns
I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, who is making a very good point. I just want to briefly make a point about wars. What we are saying, and what Biden does not appear to have an appetite for, is that we are trying to create a forever peace, not a war or a conflict. It takes guts, commitment and determination; I thank all hon. Members who have spoken so far and have shown that. That is a slight divergence from my hon. Friend’s point, but it is important that this is about forever peace, not war.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
My hon. Friend is quite right. I was going to go on to the point that it was Madeleine Albright, bless her, who persuaded President Clinton that the Americans had to be involved. President Clinton nicknamed it Madeleine’s war, but this time it has to be Secretary of State Blinken’s peace. My hon. Friend is completely right.
The point is that we can pre-empt war if we get in there with sufficient deterrent force to deter those who are arming the separatists and encouraging their withdrawal from the Bosnian state institutions. The October mandate that Dodik issued that Republika Srpska elements should cease to operate as part of the Bosnian armed forces is an act of revolution, and it must be stopped. It is contrary to international agreements and it is contrary to the UN resolutions. The UN resolutions are still in force under which we can act—and we should act.
What if Russia objects? That is the question that I want to deal with.
Bob Stewart
I wonder whether my very good friend agrees that we could do something unilaterally: deploy a spearhead battalion under operational control of EUFOR now.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
We could. I do not know whether we should do that in order to help to secure international agreement and consensus, or whether we should do it after we have secured international agreement and consensus, but if securing agreement takes too long, that may be something that we should do. Brave nations need to act to prevent another conflagration on our continent—it need not be inevitable.
These are my final questions to the Minister. What happened at the Riga NATO summit? What was discussed? When will we have a statement from the Government about what has been decided and how we, as NATO, will proceed on the matter? I am quite certain that the EU cannot do it on its own. One of the myths created by the EU is that there is something called European defence and security, or a European army, or whatever it is. It cannot act. There must be much wider international agreement. The United Kingdom must support EU action and NATO action to do this together.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Srebrenica. My interest in that part of the world arises from the fact that, from 2000 to 2002, I worked with the United Nations mission in Kosovo after the NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia. Kosovo was an autonomous province of the state of Serbia. Prior to 2000, the Serbians had come into Kosovo; I saw at first hand some of the atrocities that had been carried out by the Serbian Government in Kosovo. After I came into Parliament in 2010, I got interested in Srebrenica in particular and founded the group with a Conservative Member.
The name “Srebrenica” is associated with the dark days in July 1995 when thousands of men and boys were systematically murdered and buried in mass graves. The victims, who were Muslim, were selected for death based on their identity. Many of us will remember seeing images of the war in Bosnia during the 1990s, watching the horror of the footage of Sarajevo under siege and people being held in concentration camps, and slowly learning about the reports of the atrocities committed across Bosnia that culminated in genocide. The APPG was set up in 2013 with the purpose of commemorating Srebrenica and reminding us of those horrors. Until July 2020, when we stopped doing it because of the pandemic, we had a book of commemoration and remembrance to sign in this House.
After every conflict, we say “Never again,” but years later we have another. When the Dayton agreement was signed, it was not perfect, but it stopped the bloodshed for a number of years. It is important for us all to ensure that peace continues. We cannot return to the violence and destruction of the 1990s, so it is important for the United Kingdom to start working together with our European partners and with others in the world to ensure that they do not happen again.
The seeds of genocide in Srebrenica were planted after years of growing Serb nationalism and the spread of fear and hatred. Even now, there is genocide denial by Serbian leaders. They are trying to stoke the same fears again. Recently, Biljana Plavšić, a former President of Republika Srpska and a convicted war criminal, explained their dehumanising ideology and thinking:
“It was genetically deformed material that embraced Islam. And now, of course, with each successive generation it simply becomes concentrated. It gets worse and worse. It simply expresses itself and dictates their style of thinking, which is rooted in their genes. And through the centuries, the genes degraded further.”
I hope that the Minister will agree that that is inflammatory language that should be condemned by all.
Given the history of atrocities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I hope that the Government will take steps to activate the conflict centre and adopt an atrocity prevention framework so that we do not descend into any more identity-based violence. We know that the current Serbian leader, Dodik, has pledged to withdraw from the federal institutions and form distinct entities, seriously threatening the stability of the nation and heralding fears of a return to violence.
If the international community allows this secession, it will be rewarding the Bosnian Serbs with their goal of creating a “Greater Serbia” by handing to them the very territory in which they committed a four-year campaign consisting of forced deportation, torture and mass murder. It would also be a risk to the most vulnerable returnees, who are based in places such as Srebrenica and Prijedor. Those survivors have already experienced suffering at the hands of the Bosnian Serb force and many of their loved ones have been killed. There is now a real danger that there will be a conflict again and it will happen to them.
The potential for a return to conflict on our doorstep is worrying. Will the Minister and her Department ensure that they share analysis of the current crisis across all Departments, including the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities? Members of the Bosnian-British community are reliving their trauma and fear for what an escalation of violence might mean for their loved ones in the Balkans. I ask the Government to proactively reach out and work with Bosnian communities here, so they feel that there is someone looking after them and that they will not be left alone as they were years ago. I also ask the Government to work with Remembering Srebrenica, led by Waqar Azmi and his team, so that we are reminded of what can happen if we do nothing.
We know that the first world war was started by a Serb nationalist who killed a king in Sarajevo. I do not want to see history repeating itself.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I was a young captain in 1997, when I deployed on my very first tour to Bosnia. It was an amazing experience. I was a logistics officer based in Split in Croatia, but I spent most of my time in Gornji Vakuf, Šipovo, Kupres, and Tomislavgrad. I also spent time in Banja Luka, which was then the headquarters of the multinational division that was entrusted with enforcing the peace and the Dayton agreement. Enforcement is a theme to which I shall return.
As some may know, Bosnia is a beautiful country. I have been there many times, and I refer Members to my interests, having visited it recently. It is full of lovely people of all nationalities and religious beliefs. These are great people; these are humble people; these are hard-working people; and these are people who deserve the full support of the international community.
The awful war that lasted from 1992 until 1995 left an appalling legacy. An estimated 100,000 people were killed, 80% of whom were Bosniaks. In July 1995, Bosnian Serb forces killed as many as 8,000 Bosniak men and boys from the town of Srebrenica. I have been there a few times. Ethnic cleansing became part of our language at that time, which it had not been for many years. The legacy is pretty horrible, and it is a legacy of which we must remain mindful today.
The Dayton agreement was signed on 14 December 1995. It was signed by the Republic of Yugoslavia, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia, and the signatories in witness were the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and the EU. That means that the UK, as a signatory, also has an obligation to uphold the agreement. The commitment has been there since then. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) deployed in 1992, in the act of peacemaking. His tour was much more kinetic; it was called Operation Grapple. I deployed in 1997. My tour was peace enforcement, under the Dayton agreement. I served in support of that agreement, so I have skin in the game.
In a report delivered to the United Nations Security Council earlier this month, Christian Schmidt, the international community's high representative, suggested that Dodik had been persuaded by regional leaders to suspend his plans. That is very good news, but we cannot and must not take our foot off the gas. Why? Because Dodik’s rhetoric is separatist, and he has vowed to sever the legal and tax systems and the army in the Serb-run half of the country.
Bob Stewart
With reference to what was said by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and my hon. Friend’s wonderful words, may I point out to the House that, if Republika Srpska were to split from Bosnia, it would be a bit rich if Srebrenica—which is in Republika Srpska—stayed where it is, after what has happened there?
James Sunderland
My right hon. and gallant Friend speaks very wisely, and I could not disagree with what he has said. I urge the Minister to heed those words.
As for the future, we know there is a problem, but let us not admire the problem too greatly. For me, this is about the solution. It is clear to me that a calm de-escalation of the crisis must be the current political goal and that, as a signatory, we must stand by the Dayton agreement. As was mentioned earlier, we must also give the high representative our unequivocal support. He knows what he is talking about, so let us get behind him. I agree with the suggestion that we should support the current headquarters in Bosnia with NATO troops, or even troops of support of the EU; it does not really matter, but an enhanced British presence in the headquarters and possibly on the ground is necessary to give us the eyes and the ears that we need.
I am pretty enthused by the progress so far. We are having this debate, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing it. Baroness Goldie of the Ministry of Defence was in Sarajevo yesterday for the Bosnian Armed Forces Day. It was recently announced that Sir Stuart Peach would become the special envoy to the western Balkans. Let us recognise the good work that has been done so far. Let us recognise the senior engagement that is happening, and let us also recognise the need for a much broader unity of purpose within NATO and the United Nations, so that all signatories can come together and do what is necessary.
I will end with three points. First, I have mentioned the military presence, and it is very important to get military planners on the ground. Secondly, I believe that new Balkans policy is needed, perhaps amending the structures of the current Dayton agreement and perhaps even creating something called Dayton II, encompassing the changes and the cultural developments. The divides are still there in that fantastic country.
My last point is a simple one. I deployed in 1997 to do peace enforcement; I think we now need to do political enforcement.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland).
The recent political violence in Bosnia and Herzegovina should be of significant concern to the UK and the international community. Under the leadership of Milorad Dodik, there has been a return of ethnic conflict in the region. As we all know, in 1995 Srebrenica experienced a genocide on a scale not seen in Europe since the second world war. Eight thousand Muslim men and boys were murdered, women were raped, children were slain in front of their parents, and bodies were pushed into mass graves with the use of bulldozers. The scale of the crimes exceeds comprehension.
Following those horrific events, a peace agreement was eventually reached. The Dayton agreement is widely considered to be a holding operation, and with the situation rapidly worsening, the already fragile agreement is under immense strain. However, I welcome the appointment of Sir Stuart Peach as our new special envoy for the western Balkans.
Bob Stewart
Sir Stuart Peach is probably the most experienced and intelligent man to do that job. This is a wonderful opportunity to show leadership. We have shown that leadership; now let us give full backing to Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach and allow him to solve this problem from our point of view.
Afzal Khan
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
Does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need to reinforce the political will behind the Dayton agreement, and will she commit herself to working with the US, NATO and the EU to underline the agreement as the basis of peace in the western Balkans?
My journey with Bosnia goes back almost to the very beginning. While Yugoslavia was disintegrating, I was involved in organising demonstrations in my home city of Manchester against the persecution of Europe's Muslims. Seeing the Bosnian community flourish in Manchester and across the UK demonstrates the strength of humanity. Despite experiencing such atrocities, people were able to start a new life here in the UK and provide their children with a better future. The events of Srebrenica have always stayed with me, and they are part of the reason I dedicate so much of my work to challenging hate and division in society. Later, when I became a member of the European Parliament, I had the opportunity to serve as a shadow rapporteur for Bosnia, which took me to that beautiful country on many occasions. I had an opportunity to meet amazing, warm, loving people in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am now involved in Remembering Srebenica, a charity doing excellent work throughout the UK in schools and other community organisations, trying to learn the lessons and develop champions who can strengthen the communities.
The UK has a special duty to protect the peace and progress made in the region, not just as a signatory to the agreement but because our UK troops served there with distinction and 57 of them died securing the peace. We now know that the assaults on Bosnia’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and constitutional order enjoy the full backing of Russia, China, and Serbia. Dodik has separately said that he has support from both Russia and China, with both countries opposing the role of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Given that Russia and China are state-based threats identified in the Government’s integrated review, will the Minister condemn their attempts to undermine the High Representative’s position and the influence of the UN in the region?
It is a tragedy that, to this day, minority groups around the world are still being persecuted. After the holocaust, we said, “Never again”, yet what happened in Srebrenica and what is happening in Xinjiang, China, against the Uyghur Muslims, proves that words are not enough. They must be matched with action. As we mark 26 years since the harrowing genocide in Srebrenica, we must ensure that there is no return to the violence and suffering of the past and secure the gains made for the people of Bosnia. To echo the words of the High Representative, Bosnia
“is facing the greatest threat of the post-war period”.
It is paramount that the global response now matches the gravity of the situation.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for the work she did to bring about this debate. Many excellent points have already been made on the importance of retaining the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I add my voice to those expressing concern about recent events. The western Balkans have contributed to the history of modern Europe; they have been a meeting point between east and west for centuries. They have struck a fine balance between competing demands, and have typically performed admirably against coercive and malign forces. Any change to that position is extremely worrying.
I first visited Bosnia and Herzegovina on a visit organised by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who made an excellent and powerful speech earlier. Like the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), I found that the two most notable features were the beautiful countryside and, sadly, the scars of conflict. As the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to the western Balkans, I approach this debate from a slightly different perspective and will focus on the main element of my brief. Trade is, after all, not simply a means of growing economies but a means of ensuring peace and harmony between and within nation states. As the trade envoy, I visited Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia in October, when I held a string of meetings and visits to see for myself the fantastic partnerships that exist, as well as the numerous opportunities that we should be seizing upon.
Alicia Kearns
Those fantastic partnerships would not happen without fantastic, active individuals. Joining us today in the Public Gallery is the Bosnian ambassador to the UK, Vanja Filipović, and I want to tell the House how important he personally has been in ensuring that the things we want to talk about—trade, opportunity, partnership and friendship—are coming about. None of us wants to be having this securitised discussion about Bosnia, so I say thank you to him.
Martin Vickers
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She has made a point that I was going to make in two or three pages’ time, so I hope the House will forgive me if I repeat it.
On my recent visit, I visited a range of businesses. For example, the leading retailer in the country, Bingo, is seeking to cement existing partnerships and encourage new ones with UK suppliers. I also attended a reception hosted by the newly formed British Bosnian and Herzegovinian chamber of commerce, where I met around 50 local businessmen and women eager to do bilateral business. I met the Elnos Group and its UK partner Emico, which recently won a contract to deliver 13 prefabricated substations for HS2 and is planning to bid for more. I also met the Alfa Energy Group, one of the pioneers in energy sustainability; Riva, which is looking to introduce British fashion brands into Bosnia and Herzegovina; and Adriatic Metals, which is creating high-value jobs through a silver mine and also working to boost social cohesion through its charitable foundation.
That list is not exhaustive and I apologise to any organisation or business that I have left out, but I would be here all day if I went into more detail. In fact, there was so much to discuss that no sooner had I landed back in London than our embassy, led by our excellent ambassador Matt Field and his extremely capable team, requested that I return a couple of weeks later for further meetings—a request that I was happy to accept. The point I am trying to make is that there are endless opportunities for our two countries to co-operate further and deepen our partnerships.
The possibilities are endless, but only if we have a stable Bosnia and Herzegovina that is committed to the rule of law and the international agreements to which it has signed up. Yet decision making in the country is deadlocked and preventing it from functioning. The political blockade is damaging not only the internal dynamics of Bosnia and Herzegovina but the external ones as well. One key impact is on the trade continuity agreement that the Governments of the UK and Bosnia and Herzegovina are aiming to secure. After a slow start, we were finally making progress, but the blockade has stalled the process once again and this is unlikely to be resolved until the blockade ends, meaning that Bosnia and Herzegovina is one of just three countries we have not yet signed a TCA with. As a result, customs duties have come into force, hurting businesses and trade.
That is all the more disappointing given the fact that our trading relationship has been improving in recent years. Total trade is modest, but it is increasing despite the impact of covid-19. In the four quarters to the end of the first quarter of 2021, total trade in goods and services was worth £117 million—an increase of 77% or £51 million on the previous year. This is an opportunity that the excellent chamber of commerce I mentioned is well placed to seize upon. I was pleased to play a role in the formation of the chamber earlier this year, but businesses will be aware that instability in the country will not be to their advantage. It is hoped that Bosnia and Herzegovina will gain membership of the World Trade Organisation in the near future, but this will be very much in doubt if the country is divided.
Those who seek to undermine the integrity of the country need to recognise that the High Representative’s use of his executive powers to amend the criminal code was not an attack on any ethnicity, and the country as a whole needs to acknowledge the past so that it can move forward. A political blockade prevents this. The Dayton peace agreement, and the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina that resulted from it, ended the 1992-95 conflict. It may not be perfect, but it has been for some time the strongest guarantee against conflict in the region. Without it, EU accession talks would not be possible. Calls for the dissolution of Bosnia and Herzegovina are contrary to the Dayton agreement. The UK stands ready to support Bosnia and Herzegovina in protecting its territorial integrity and will support political and democratic reforms that safeguard social cohesion, the rule of law and the safety of its people.
We are committed to tearing down barriers to co-operation, not putting them up, and so long as Bosnia and Herzegovina maintains the same commitment, it will have the full support of the UK as a steadfast ally. I know from my visits and from discussions with politicians and diplomats across the region that there are moderate voices to be heard. We need to work closely with them and develop not only our political links but our trading and economic ties, which can lead to peace and prosperity. We must do all we can to urge those moderate voices to engage with us and to deliver the peace and prosperity that is within their grasp.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. There will now be a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald for arranging this debate on such an important topic.
The current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is difficult and highly political both in the region and internationally. We have heard how some EU countries have suggested sanctions against the state, while Dodik purports to have other EU leaders firmly on side. We have heard him declare that they will
“defend ourselves with our own forces”
if EU sanctions are implemented, and we have heard his thinly veiled threats to involve Russia and China if NATO gets involved. All that must, of course, be considered and addressed, but I wish to use my time to focus on the humanitarian side of this fast-unfolding crisis.
We are all aware of the dangerous and divisive rhetoric running unchecked throughout the region and, as I mentioned last month when the Minister came to the House to answer an urgent question, I am deeply concerned about where it could lead if it is not stopped in its tracks. The Srebrenica massacre of 1995 was an atrocity. The genocide of thousands of Muslim men and boys—the most horrific of events—is now being dismissed and genocide-denial sentiments are rising among Republika Srpska factions. It was only 26 years ago—not nearly long enough for it to slip from our consciousness. Letting it do so is incredibly dangerous.
That massacre was not the only atrocity of the war in the ’90s: there were many instances of what can be described only as crimes against humanity. There was the murder, torture and systematic rape of Bosniak Muslims throughout the region because of their ethnic and religious identities. That is why the charity Remembering Srebrenica has dedicated so much over the past eight years to educating young people on the lessons to be learned from such events so that they are never repeated.
There are people in the region who will be terrified, because they have not forgotten. Those on the receiving end of the growing hate speech know all too well what could happen if nobody is willing to intervene. Right now, they have no assurance that this is not the path that Bosnia and Herzegovina is on. Genocide and widespread crimes against humanity do not happen by accident or chance; they are well planned and organised. The seeds are sown early, from creating division throughout a society to manipulating citizens and playing to their fears.
As a signatory of the Dayton agreement, the UK has a responsibility to the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, so will the Minister commit to developing not only a strategy to prevent any further escalation of the divisive discourse in the region but country-specific approaches for other regions of concern? Will she commit to ensuring that such work will be properly funded and resourced?
Although another war is not inevitable, we have seen how similar conflicts have led to the criminalisation and persecution of human rights activists and civil society. That is why those groups were among those prioritised in the evacuations in Afghanistan, and we have seen how Palestinian groups have been proscribed recently too. Such people and organisations can have a tangible impact in deradicalising extremist views and protecting vulnerable minorities, but they need the opportunity to do their job safely and without fear for their lives. Will the Minister confirm that a plan is in place to protect civil society in the region?
There has been and will be much talk of sanctions, military presence and national security—not just in today’s debate but in conversations everywhere. Every option should be given due consideration, but only so long as the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina remain at the heart of much-needed intervention. That must be the priority. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said, we who are here today are friends of Bosnia and will continue to demonstrate that friendship.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing this important and timely debate. She asked the Minister a number of important questions, on which I concur.
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I visited Bosnia and Herzegovina in September as part of the delegation of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces. I am grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) for making the trip so successful. I am also grateful to the excellent ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Matthew Field.
It was an extremely useful visit, as I knew little about the country, apart from having followed the war in the 1990s. Such trips are essential if we are to understand what is going in other countries. We met Members of Parliament from Bosnia and Herzegovina and assured them of our support for future trade and diplomatic links. We were aware of the tensions, but they were well hidden during our meeting. Twelve UK Members of Parliament, I think, took four days out of their recess to visit the country to learn more about it. We learned about the Bosnian war, and I hope that that reveals the seriousness with which we take the events and people of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
We visited two sites of genocide, at Ahmići and Srebrenica—and it was genocide, despite the denial of Mr Dodik. We talked to local Muslim people about what they had seen, and heard some very moving testimonies from the mothers and wives of those who had been murdered. The UK Government have sponsored an excellent museum at Srebrenica that shows the atrocities in full. One harrowing video showed a man calling his son and others down off the surrounding wooded hills, as he had been assured by the Serbs that they would be safe. It was not so. The Serbs filmed everything and the language they used while tracking people in the woods through their sniper rifles was that of hunting animals.
Eight thousand men and boys were massacred in three days. The Serbs moved the bodies they had buried in mass graves ,so that they would not be spotted and the numbers of those murdered would not be known. That means that their body parts are now in different graves and families still do not have a whole body to grieve over.
We met people who had been teenagers in Sarajevo during the war. Previously, there had been no issue with the different religions or ethnicities and everyone had mixed happily. One day they were all in nightclubs being teenagers; two days later they were hiding in basements, where they spent three long years during the siege, not able to venture out for fear of being shot by snipers. Bullet holes are on practically every building.
Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot go back to those dark ages. We have heard from others about the importance of the Dayton peace agreement and of the compromise that has led to so many years of peace. Mr Dodik appears to want to tear that up by withdrawing Republika Srpska from key state institutions.
What of those Muslim families we met in the state, whose families have lived there for generations and are keen to work with others from all religions again, as before the war? Schools there are segregated and named after Serbian war criminals, and there are statues of those people too.
The 1992 war started by the Serbs was well planned. They dominated the armed forces and used army exercises to train Serbians and establish bases around Sarajevo and beyond. Genocide was well planned. The actions of Mr Dodik as he builds up allies like President Putin should not give us confidence that they are not doing the same again.
A war in Bosnia Herzegovina will destabilise the region and threaten UK national security. Bosnia is on the crossroads of east and west and is a centre for criminal gangs—ironically, they work seamlessly across ethnic divides within the gangs—as well as drugs and people traffickers. President Putin would like to disrupt any chance of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s joining the EU or NATO, which should be fast-tracked as soon as possible.
The US has asked us to lead in this area, alongside the EU, and we must shoulder that responsibility immediately, alongside the UN special representative. With my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women, peace and security hat on, I say that we must enable civil society, and particularly the many women who are working towards establishing relationships with other religions, to flourish. We must help them to get back to the pre-1992 situation, when everyone worked together regardless of religion or ethnicity.
Alicia Kearns
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. One thing that most strikes me—she will know this from her leadership of that group—is that when we meet the widows of Srebrenica and the women of Bosnia, the systematic rape of these women is a silent issue. People do not speak up about what these women went through and what they see when they look into their children’s faces. It is important that we talk about that and do not force them to feel ashamed, as they do, about what they went through. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for touching on the importance of women in this situation, because so often when we talk about Bosnia that has been silenced.
Mrs Drummond
Absolutely, and it makes it even more remarkable that they want to move forward and start to form new relationships with their neighbours from different religions and ethnicities, despite what they have gone through.
Too many young Bosnians are leaving the country because they feel it is unsafe. Like others, I would really like to see more international troops on the ground to reassure the Bosnia and Herzegovina Government that we are there to deter any internal conflict or destabilisation by Russia or internal forces.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton for securing this timely debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this important debate, which is very close to my heart. We have had an excellent debate this afternoon. The House should be united on this issue, and I think it is. This debate has shown our close links with Bosnia and Herzegovina and, without a doubt, it has shown the urgent need for action. I am delighted to have seen the Minister in her place throughout the debate, listening carefully.
I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity and vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Bosnia and Herzegovina. I was a humanitarian aid worker during the war, living in Serbia and Bosnia, and four years later I returned with my small family to head Christian Aid’s Bosnia office, rebuilding villages in north-west Bosnia and supporting the return of refugees.
I saw how a country that seemed to be peaceful and communities that seemed to be ethnically diverse and happily co-existent could slide into conflict, and I saw how devastating that is for everyone. I lived in communities and spoke to the relatives of elderly people who fled with an hour or two’s notice and never returned to their home. They died, devastated, in another part of the country. I spoke to people whose education and dreams for the future were shattered, whose families were separated and whose husbands were killed. The country suffers that deep trauma still.
I will never forget standing in a village with some returning refugees when my translator froze in terror as he recognised the voice of someone who had been a sniper, firing into the town night after night, during the siege of Bihać. Despite those deep traumas and differences, I pay tribute to everyone in Bosnia who has worked hard to rebuild their beautiful country and who looked atrocities and killing in the face and did not let it define their community forever—to everyone who has consistently chosen peace over hate for many years.
This month is the 26th anniversary of the Dayton agreement, to which the UK is a signatory. We need to reassert our support for the agreement and for the integrity of the national borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The trigger for the current crisis has been genocide denial. We stand together to condemn that genocide denial and the rise of divisive identity-based politics. The UK and international response to the increasingly divisive politics of the leader of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, has been quiet for too long, but I sense a turning of that tide, and I hope this debate will hasten it.
We must learn from what happened in the 1990s and in Srebrenica. When we say “never again,” we must mean it. A return to violence in Bosnia is not inevitable, and I will focus on two things. First, civil society has an important role. We have talked about troops on the ground, which I hope not to see. If we work well with civil society now, we can stop it.
We have learned lessons about peacebuilding in Northern Ireland, and that peace was built not just through diplomatic agreements or military action but through community groups, brave individuals, women’s groups, teachers and young people. It was supported by other countries, too. For example, a stream of parliamentarians from South Africa repeatedly went to Northern Ireland and lent influential encouragement and expertise during the peace process. Let us learn from that.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I emphasise the hon. Lady’s point about the role of women and the empowerment of women in conflict prevention, which has also been raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond). The women’s peace movement in Northern Ireland was instrumental in helping to end that conflict, and men should be supporting women’s peace movements.
Fleur Anderson
I absolutely agree. There are voices of peace, especially women’s voices, within Republika Srpska, but it is not easy to work with them. Earlier we heard from the High Representative that it is difficult to be in civil society, to be those voices and to be those women who speak out. We need to seek out those groups and find where they are. I have been asking about this for quite a long time, and I do not know the groups with which we should be working. We in the UK face a challenge in what we can do not only to prevent genocide and conflict now—that is clearly value for money—but to build a lasting peace for the future. That has to be done in conjunction with civil society.
Secondly, we need an atrocity prevention strategy. The United States has one. The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocity Prevention Act 2018 commits the US Government to pursuing a Government-wide strategy to identify, prevent and respond to atrocity risk. We need that across all the countries in which we work, but we need it in Bosnia right now. Such a strategy would include improved communication between desk officers and London and proper training on spotting the signs early and on what to do, and it would put in place a better early warning system to spot the signs of genocide. According to the UN framework, we can see 21 of 80 warning signs right now. What is happening in other countries? Do we spot them? Are we ready? Without a genocide prevention strategy across all our work, we will not be ready in Bosnia or elsewhere.
Finally, what can the UK do now? I echo many earlier points. I welcome today’s announcement of a special envoy to the Balkans. Will the Minister join me in condemning genocide denial and remembering the 8,000 people who died in the Srebrenica genocide? Will she work with the US, NATO and the EU to impose sanctions on countries that undermine the Dayton peace agreement and to assert the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Will she provide unequivocal support for the UN High Representative, Christian Schmidt? And will she look into the peacebuilding and civil society support we need to give to groups, communities and individuals in Republika Srpska now?
A co-ordinated, coherent and well-implemented atrocity prevention strategy can save countless lives, stop the need for military intervention and complement diplomatic support.
Bob Stewart
I speak as someone who was very close to an atrocity. I love the idea of an atrocity prevention strategy but, when it happened within three miles of my camp, I knew nothing about it until it happened. There were no indications whatever. It went bang and 100 people were dead.
Fleur Anderson
Atrocities and crimes against humanity happen in different ways in different countries, but the experience from many other countries and other conflicts around the world shows—not always but in many cases—that there are indicators that can be spotted and acted upon before there are military personnel on the ground.
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I understand there is some scepticism among Conservative Members about an atrocity prevention strategy, but I urge them to look to the experience of its implementation in America and in many African countries. A co-ordinated atrocity prevention strategy can stop history repeating itself. It needs to start with Bosnia, and it needs to start today.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing this important debate.
The tone of this debate has been grave, and it has been one of concern. If Bosnians are watching, I hope it will be understood that the motivation is one of love and affection. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a beautiful country of rivers, valleys and mountains, with a vibrant and friendly population. Bosnia could be a great southern European country, if its great potential can be exploited.
In saying that, I do not dismiss the obvious challenges that Bosnia and Herzegovina faces. It has faced the worst atrocities in post-war Europe, and after the civil war it has weak governmental structures, having what has been called a “flat tin roof” of central Government covering two statelets, and there is still a strong international presence in the High Representative. I thank Mr Christian Schmidt for taking the time today to brief parliamentarians on his work. Bosnians should take pride in the fact that for more than two decades there has been peace in that country. As we have heard, no harm has been caused to peacekeepers during that time either.
As a result of those achievements in the past two decades, I share the serious concerns about talk of secessionism; attempts made to weaken central structures even further and to undermine the role of the High Representative; the great deal of political uncertainty; and the weakness of civil society structures. Those concerns build a picture of a lost opportunity to build Bosnia into a strong country. I do not have the experiences that other right hon. and hon. Members have voiced this afternoon, but my small experience came from visiting Ježevac, where there is a refugee camp about 12 miles from Tuzla. It is remote and off the beaten track. I visited in 2000 as a young undergraduate doing some charity work. It is a pretty village of white buildings built by a Norwegian non-governmental organisation, but it is a village of women, girls and boys—an entire generation of men from about 17 onwards is missing there, as they were murdered at Srebrenica. In this remote village were survivors of Srebrenica who were eking out an existence, having been abandoned by the world. In my preparation for this debate, I wanted to know what happened to Ježevac, and I found a report in The Guardian from just last year that showed it was still there. Some 20 years later, the people in Ježevac are in this small remote village outside Tuzla eking out an existence on the hillside in their little huts. That just shows that although great progress has been made, there has been a big lost opportunity to build the country that Bosnia could be. So there is a great deal of work we can do.
I appreciate that only the people of Bosnia can build that strong Bosnian nation, but I add my voice to the calls we have heard this afternoon for Her Majesty’s Government to be that friend of Bosnia that it needs, to support the Dayton structures, including the role of the High Representative, and to take on the malign forces that are seeking to undermine the nation. As we have heard, we have seen twice in the 20th century that Bosnia has been a flashpoint for great violence, and I hope that we can start to take the action that we need today to make sure that Bosnia will not become the headline in the 21st century, as it has been previously.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to speak on this issue. I commend the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for leading today’s debate. All debates are important, but this one is particularly important to me as I am a huge advocate for human rights globally, and it is a pleasure to be here today to address the ongoing issues in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
I wish to commend the hon. and gallant Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), and, in particular, the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for his courage and leadership. I have had many discussions with him, and in this House he is held in very high esteem. We have a friendship and a personal relationship that has been enhanced by being here, but I just want to say to him that when I think of him I know why his men followed him—
Jim Shannon
No, it is more than that. It is because he gives them leadership and courage—that is the issue.
Bosnia and Herzegovina has been experiencing intensified political and ethnic tensions, which could potentially break the country apart and slide it back into war once again. Bosnia has seen ongoing political violence since the early 1990s, and long before the Bosnian war of 1995. The violence stemming from the discrimination and inequalities is political. I speak as chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, and I speak up for those of an ethnic or religious minority who run for public office in that country—it is almost impossible for them to do that. So I find it astonishing that the constitution has still not been amended, as there is a need for it to be changed. Why should anybody be subject to discrimination and persecution just because they have a different religion or are from a different ethnic minority?
The human rights abuses occur many ways. First, Bosnia and Herzegovina is faced with thousands of migrants and asylum seekers wanting somewhere to live. Between January and August 2019, the state service for foreign affairs registered some 11,292 irregular arrivals and only 185 submitted an asylum application. No one received refugee status. So we have to look at that issue as well.
Secondly, the levels of domestic and gender-based violence are rife—others have mentioned that but I want to state it as well. Human Rights Watch stated that violence against women increased to significant levels in Bosnia during the pandemic, as it did in many parts of the world. However, in this case, in 2018-19 only 1,223 of the 2,865 reported cases of domestic violence resulted in a court decision—those figures worry me, as this is less than half. In the remainder of the cases, the victim had changed their statement or had withdrawn the allegation, ultimately dropping charges against the perpetrator. I always like to make it clear that when we look at such figures, they are the “reported” figures. Therefore, I suspect—I do not have any evidential base to prove this, but I do not think I am far wrong—that many hundreds, if not thousands, more women are probably suffering at the hands of abusers but are too frightened to report it, given the ongoing human rights abuses.
I was not aware that the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) had done work in Bosnia, but I commend her for that. We were at a Christian Aid thing last night and I saw her there, but I did not realise that she had personal experience of this—I just want to put my thanks to her for that on the record. Intervention from our Government and others is the way to help tackle this problem. We cannot sit back and expect stability and peace to occur if we do nothing to help. This debate is about what we can do and the leadership to which the right hon. Member for Beckenham referred. This country must lead and be at the front. We are accountable for assistance, although I have to say that the human rights abuses by way of a restricted media are prominent. For example, it has been stated that journalists continue to face interference to their work, including lawsuits, and verbal and physical attacks. There have been at least 51 documented violations of media freedom.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about the peace process in Northern Ireland. As a Unionist, I am very pleased that we have the peace process and that many parts of the world—the USA, the EU and other countries—took the time and effort to make that happen. But do Members know why the peace process delivered at the end of the day? It was because the people of Northern Ireland wanted it to happen. So for it to happen for the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, they need to make it happen. The leader of our group here, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), was in South Africa, along with others, to look at the peace process there and how to move forward.
Alicia Kearns
The hon. Gentleman absolutely makes the point: this has to be about what the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina want. Again, this goes back to the point that Dodik does not have the support he claims he commands. Poll after poll, meeting after meeting of civil society groups, interventions and meetings involving the High Representatives have shown that people do not want secession. The people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the Republika Srpska and in every other part of it, just want peace, stability and opportunity. So when we talk about what people want, it is important that we keep that in our mind: they do not want secession.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for that, as it is good to have it on the record. She is absolutely right about where we are in this position. As a Unionist, I changed my position when we looked at what we wanted for Northern Ireland. We could not always depend on the Unionist majority and so we needed to have a relationship with those of a nationalist persuasion and we needed to work together to make that happen. So it does come from within. It came because the majority of the people—that is her point—wanted it to happen.
I wish briefly to discuss a topic on which I like to encourage conversation, as this happens all too often and more times than enough it is ignored: the persecution of religious groups in Bosnia. In particular, I refer to the Bosnian genocide, which has had a prolonged effect on the Bosnian culture. It was estimated that some 23,000 women, children and elderly people were put on buses and driven to Muslim-controlled territory, while, as others have said, 8,000-plus battle-age men were detained and killed. Many Bosniak residents were driven into concentration camps, where women were abused in a horrific way and other civilians were tortured, starved and murdered.
In the wider struggle for stability and peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I give encouragement to and call upon the FCDO. I look to the Minister, as I always do, as she is the person who is going to answer and give us the answers we want—no pressure there. We must offer our support to her to give the direction that we all wish to see. As the right hon. Member for Beckenham and I have said, we want our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to lead on this, and therefore we look to our allies in NATO, the EU and, further afield, in the US, to come to do that. We need to uphold the provisions of the Dayton peace agreement that was signed in November 1995. It is not too late to adhere to that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
In response to the comment about why his troops followed him, Colonel Bob Stewart shouted from a sedentary position, “Out of curiosity”. I should hate that quip not to make Hansard.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Speeches in this important debate today, so successfully led by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), have reflected the wide range of contributions made at the time—whether military, in the media, charitable or parliamentary—by Members both in Bosnia and indeed elsewhere. Above all, what comes out of this debate is the huge amount of shared interest, concern and goodwill for the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina. All of us can remember where we were during some of the most horrific events from a generation ago, particularly the massacre in Srebrenica. All of us today wish to see this newish nation continue to succeed.
I come to this debate partly as chair of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which was born out of those events. The then Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, created the foundation with huge cross-party support from individuals such as George Robertson and Margaret Ewing. It was not just a Conservative venture, but a parliamentary venture to help build and support the new democratic parties and institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thirty years on, a few months away from that anniversary, it would be a horrible irony if this effort, among all the efforts made by people in this country and elsewhere, including in Bosnia itself, were to come to a horrible return to the nationalistic and secessionist events of a generation ago. All of us stand in support of the work of the High Representative, the ambassador here and also our ambassador out there, and the Minister and her colleagues to try to play our role in preventing that from happening.
Tony Lloyd
The hon. Gentleman is making a fine contribution. Let us just think how cheap the work of the Westminster Foundation is, or other measures designed to maintain peace, compared with the enormous cost of refugees flooding across Europe and of conflict once again in the heart of Europe. It is a cheap deal and we should grab it.
Richard Graham
The hon. Gentleman is right, although, by mentioning that, he tempts me to stray into the territory of budget resolutions for the WFD and other such issues—but I will not do so today. He is right that what is absolutely crucial is maintaining peace, continuing stability, building on an imperfect agreement—the Dayton accord—and trying to encourage all the political institutions in Bosnia to work more closely with civic society to build a country in which the young, above all, have confidence and can see a future. That is precisely what the WFD is doing there today, and what we have been doing across the west Balkans, which, above all, includes, as the Minister knows, trying to build more inclusive societies where both the young and women feel that they have a critical role to play. This is perhaps particularly so in a society that was so dominated by war and by male nationalism not that long ago. It is interesting, for example, that following the programme that we ran there in 2020, 30 female councillors were elected at local government level. That is an encouraging step in the right direction.
However, all of these efforts will come to nothing if, as has been rightly said, we somehow allow the country to slide back potentially towards civil unrest and even civil war. That is the theme of today. There will be other themes to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) will no doubt allude to the very successful campaign run by Baroness Helić, now in the Lords, when she was working as special adviser to the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Hague of Richmond, while I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Foreign Office, to highlight some of the unbelievable atrocities done in that conflict and elsewhere in the world. All that good work risks being unravelled by some in Bosnia and Herzegovina who wish to return to a different nationalistic world of division and conflict.
We have seen plenty of evidence of the commitment of the Minister and our Government. I know that the Minister has seen the High Representative. Her colleague, the Defence Minister, was in Bosnia yesterday for Armed Forces Day, and we are beginning to see the right signals coming through social media from the US, the EU, NATO and the UN. They are all coming together and not sounding a slightly different note and tone about their approach to secessionist moves. Ultimately, if we start redrawing maps in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we risk unravelling maps all across central and eastern Europe with horrible consequences. I am talking about the 1.8 million Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina who will surely find their way in that situation towards other parts of Europe and towards our own shores, rather than being able to build their current and future lives in their own country. We do know of the ghastly consequences that could come from this.
The appointment of Sir Stuart Peach is an encouraging step forward. All sorts of discussions are to be had, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) suggested earlier, about what role we could play in EUFOR and the UN forces as a stabilising and protecting mission with a clear purpose of saving lives and preventing war. There must be no doubt about what that goal should be. Perhaps, above all, we should try to make sure that this country continues to play our role in the issues in Europe, which matter to all of us here, for that is the goal not only of this debate, but much more widely, of our role in Europe and in the world as a force for good.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for opening this debate so powerfully. I also thank those Members who have spoken today who have direct experience of the conflict and of the subsequent peacebuilding in Bosnia and Herzegovina. For me, the conflict then was a horror unfolding on the nightly news, and has seldom been mentioned since in the news. However, in the past week, I have received a number of personal and moving messages from constituents who came from Bosnia and Herzegovina, telling me just how worried they are about the current situation.
The Dayton agreement was a key diplomatic achievement in post-war Europe; it was not a perfect agreement, but it stopped the bloodshed and provided nearly 30 years of peace. It showed that peace was possible and that the international community, including the US and the UK, could be a force for justice, a force for good and a force for peace. It sent a powerful message, while also bringing peace for so many families.
The 1995 horrors of Srebrenica are a painful reminder that genocide and crimes against humanity are not merely something from the distant past. The legendary writer and holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said that, after the holocaust, the words, “Never again” became more than a slogan; they became “a prayer, a promise, a vow.” That vow should underpin the work of our Government—and indeed of all Governments—on the world stage.
One constituent who lived through the conflict wrote to me of
“the large number of concentration camps where people were tortured in many inhumane ways, subjected to torture, hunger and thirst.”
He told me that these horrors had a particular impact on children, as they had
“their carefree childhood interrupted, and many were left without one or both parents and lived in orphanages or in foster care.”
Those in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the diaspora across the world are really worried about the situation. A constituent told me that citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina
“want to enjoy peace, freedom and democracy, and to preserve their integrity and sovereignty. They want to progress and have a better future...They deserve happiness and prosperity as any other human being.”
Those words echo the central point of this debate: they deserve happiness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) has written to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and rightly called on the Government to take urgent action, as others have done today. The UK has a special role to play and should be leading on this situation. We hear much from the Government about global Britain. Surely this is the type of issue where we need to see the whole Government playing a larger role, not only as a signatory to the Dayton agreement, which underpins peace, but because of our duty to the memory of the 57 members of the UK forces who died while securing peace.
We have heard serious concerns about the current situation from the UN High Representative, Christian Schmidt, and from the EU and NATO. Our Government need to work with our European partners in France and Germany, along with the US, to ensure that the EU’s peacekeeping operation has the necessary support. We have a moral duty to find a solution to this crisis, to work with our allies and to lead. I hope that we will hear from the Government about just what they are doing.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
As has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), I am privileged to chair the all-party parliamentary group on the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, which was set up by the then Foreign Secretary, William Hague, and Baroness Helić, who sits in the other place. The APPG and the initiative have recently been relaunched, and I understand that Stuart Peach is to have a remit and a role. The initiative shows the significance of ensuring that women are included in the peace discussions, and that we can push for justice, support, and action against the perpetrators.
At this point in the debate, there is little else that I can say that has not already been mentioned. This is the second significant debate that we have had in this House on Bosnia in about three weeks. It is important that we continue this momentum and pressure to ensure that Bosnians, Bosniaks and people of the western Balkans understand that we will continue to discuss and debate this issue, and that this House is united and the Government are listening, because today’s call for action is unanimous.
There is no doubt that we need to recognise the genocide that has gone on in the western Balkans and in Bosnia, but it is also important to understand that Bosnia might be the first domino that will fall, and if it falls we will see action in Kosovo and issues in Montenegro, and we will give up the ghost in the western Balkans as a whole; the spread of fear and intimidation is being used to divide people. Of course, after Afghanistan we have seen that the west’s response has been somewhat subdued. We need to use this as the opportunity for the west to regain its confidence and to act and intervene where necessary. Bosnia is a case in point, not just because of our history or the extraordinary service of our soldiers and the UN peacekeeping forces, but because it is in our backyard and it is the playground of Russia, and of Serbia and Croatia, where they are trying to ignore international rules.
So much has been said about Dodik, but we know his playbook. It will be to use a small riot or some security issue, and then areas will go into lockdown and police forces will arrive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) said, we are already seeing it. Those are the tactics that will be used; we have to expect them, but we have to expect a robust response.
We should have two focuses. The first is on the short term. Today we need a commitment from the Foreign Secretary to respond. If Dodik takes action and there is intervention, we need to be able to say with confidence that we will react and encourage others to do so. We need to ensure that sanctions and travel bans are implemented. I do not know whether the UK will unilaterally put sanctions and travel bans on individuals, but we should have no fear or hesitation about publishing a list of those we want to target; that should be absolutely no problem for us. Of course, this short-term focus must also be about reaffirming territorial integrity. We made this point during the last urgent question on this issue, but we need this reaffirmation conclusively, and we need it to be repeated again and again and again.
The second perspective is the long term. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, we need to reform annexe 4 of the constitution to ensure that there is democratic accountability, and to give that confidence to people in the region and area. As so many Members have said, the Dayton accord needs to be modernised and updated.
Russia and China are meddling and disrupting in the region. Russia is arming police forces in the Republika Srpska. China is trying to encourage a debt-trap scenario in Bosnia. Those are two of the outside players, but we must ensure that there is accountability towards Croatia and Serbia, because, frankly, they must be held to account for their actions. If they want to see entry into the EU or other organisations, we must hold them to account on this issue.
Today’s announcement about Sir Stuart Peach is particularly welcome, but would the Minister inform the House on what his remit will be, when he will be reporting back on what is going on, and what his powers will be, because this morning’s announcement was very broad?
We have seen EU intransigence, NATO inaction and US indifference. I am sorry to put it like that, but the United Kingdom seems to be the only country right now that is standing up and talking about this issue. As other Members have said, we have a duty to lead. Let us lead and let us restore the confidence in the international rules-based order, and support an extraordinary country.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing this incredibly important debate.
My interest in this matter is connected to two things. First, I have not really spoken about this, but my academic background is in Russia, and Russian and eastern European history. If I have any international knowledge, it is connected to that. I also had the great privilege of going to Bosnia only about two months ago, on a delegation to Bosnia and Herzegovina led by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who gave a fantastic tour.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) said, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country and a nation with, in some respects, so much going for it: the great, unique beauty of the physical environment; by and large, lovely, interesting people; a culture and a history that is unmatched; and a capital city that is probably one of the most fascinating that I have ever had the privilege of visiting. It is slightly disappointing that we are now at a point where we cannot fly direct to Sarajevo. I hope that that changes at some point in the future, and that many of my constituents and those of every hon. Member in this place can go and see the wonders in Bosnia and Herzegovina that a lot of us have had the benefit of seeing.
It is sad that so long after the Dayton agreement, the political lines remain very narrow. We do not see political parties that transcend the particular ethnic and religious groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that has been made more difficult by the self-interested behaviour of various political actors there that have held back the process. I do think it is possible that Bosnia and Herzegovina can be a sustainable nation, if given the chance to do so by those who have the ultimate responsibility for making that happen and for ensuring that the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina can live together in peace and harmony.
During my visit to Bosnia, I went to Ahmići, which is in the north of the country. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham was at the heart of witnessing the horrors that happened there. Of course, it was Bosnian Croats who committed that genocide; and it was a genocide, and it was right that it was called that.
Srebrenica will stick with me forever in terms of what I saw there and the graves. Although more than 8,000 people died, there are nowhere near that many graves there, because a lot of the remains have not been found. But they continue to be found, and when I was there, I saw new, fresh graves being dug.
We also had the great privilege of meeting the mothers of a lot of the boys and young men who were massacred, and the women whose husbands were massacred. That will stick with me perhaps more than anything. It was probably the most depressing thing about the visit, because I have been to a similar place where such horrors happened, and that place was Auschwitz. My visit there will also stick with me for the rest of my life, but there is something particularly depressing about a visit to Srebrenica, because not all the lessons have been learnt. In fact, most of the lessons have not been learnt by those connected to and close to the horror that took place.
We should listen to the mothers of those who were massacred explain how, to this day, they see in their communities those linked to the people who carried out the evil that happened, how they are a victim of abuse in the streets, and how they know that within schools in the Republic of Srpska revisionist history is taught and the mayor of a local town has not even bothered to visit the cemetery. This is happening on our doorstep and any country that supports the individuals involved in this should be ashamed.
What do we know would happen if we were to say that the Republic of Srpska can succeed? What message would that send in giving in to the tactics of many people who do not see this for what it was—a genocide—and who are not apologetic for the evil that happened? What message does that send?
Alicia Kearns
The importance of going to Bosnia must not be understated. I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that because I remember visiting the Srebrenica memorial in 2015, and two Serbian young men driving past in their car with music blaring, throwing bottles of urine into the memorial. I remember attending the funerals of people whose body parts had finally been pulled together because the Serbians went in with diggers and dug up the mass graves to try to deny and hide how many people they had murdered. I remember people screaming, “The deaths are made up—they are not real, what is going on?” and people picketing these funerals. Does he agree that it is vital that as many Members of this House as possible visit and learn, because it is only through seeing the visceral pain that was there in 2015, and is there now, that we can truly understand how much of a tinderbox Bosnia is?
Tom Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for that fantastic intervention. I think any Member who has the opportunity to go there should go there. Anyone outside this place who has the opportunity to go there should go there. I admit that before I went I was quite blind to the reality of the present-day situation and the extent to which many of the problems still exist. I probably naively thought, “That was a little while ago now. I assume it’s all moved forward and the lessons have been learned.” The most depressing thing about all this is the extent to which, in many ways, that is not the case.
I use that comparison: that visit and my visit to Auschwitz. That is a relevant comparison because the scale is not the same, but the brutality, the genocide and the evil intentions are the same. The difference is this. We know that antisemitism still exists in our country and in the world and we should not stop until it is completely eradicated, but, other than a few fringe conspiracy theorists, nobody denies the brutal evil reality of what happened in the holocaust. But, to this day, not far away from where we stand, there are many people, and many countries backing people, who do deny what happened in 1995. That should cause us all great concern. I do not profess to be an expert on international affairs or that country, but I am an honourable Member in this place who was incredibly moved by what I saw on my visit, and it has shaped my thinking in a way that I doubt many visits will ever do for me as long as I am a Member in this place.
In terms of what we do now, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton because, at the very least, this will raise awareness and that is good and an end in itself. But in terms of concrete actions, I would like to share the views expressed by the vast majority of hon. Members about what we need to do. We do need to stand tall because so often this great country is relied upon to do so and we must not let the people of Bosnia down.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow all the speeches in this debate and to wind up for the SNP. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on bringing this important issue before the House and on an excellent speech that I very much enjoyed.
A number of excellent points have been made throughout the debate, so I will focus particularly on outcomes and action points because it is important that we take stock of what is happening in Bosnia. The price of peace is eternal vigilance and that has never been more true than with what is happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina just now. There is a wider context as well. We are seeing a pattern of behaviour. We are seeing it in cyber-attacks in the Baltic states, in the odious use of refugees to create a crisis on the Polish border, and in the continued illegal annexation of Crimea and continued instability in eastern Ukraine. Russia and its proxies will test, and are testing, the limits of the rules-based international order, and the Dayton accords are fragile and under threat because they are also testing the resolve of the international community to defend that international order and those accords. So international solidarity and co-ordination have never been more vital.
In terms of action points and what we can do, I will not repeat the excellent points that have been made from all points of the compass in the House. There are a number of things that we can and should be doing more of. I commend the work that the UK Government have done but I would like to see further action. First, on focus, we need to make everyone aware in the region that we are paying attention to what is happening there, and it is relevant to us in our countries and to what is happening here. We need to give vocal support to the high representative, as a number of colleagues have said. He needs support in his job and full-throated support in the international forums where he is trying to win his arguments.
Secondly, it is surely past time that Magnitsky sanctions were imposed on individuals within the region, but also that wider sanctions were set out as there will be consequences to infringements of the Dayton accords. We must ratchet that up to make sure that people are in no doubt that there will be consequences to malfeasance.
Thirdly, on NATO, the establishment of a counter-disinformation centre in Sarajevo is a wonderful proposal. It would be useful in countering the blizzard of disinformation and lies that is trying to muddy the water and confuse people within the region.
Fourthly, I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) about an atrocity prevention strategy. This is very close to the SNP’s heart as well. In the coming weeks we will be putting forward our proposals for the protection of civilians. I warmly commend the paper by Dr Kate Ferguson from Protection Approaches to the House. She sets out a number of very practical ways in which this could be taken forward. It would boost the efforts of global Britain to be the force for good that various Members hope it can be. If the UK Government took steps in that direction, we would support that. It would be a common effort. We think that atrocity prevention should be far higher up the agenda within the FCDO.
The protection of civilians is crucial within Bosnia and Herzegovina. As we have heard, violence is not inevitable, but surely history tells us that it is very far from impossible either. So we must see higher action on this. The price of peace being eternal vigilance, we remember Srebrenica each year as a humanitarian tragedy, but we also need to remember it as a collective failure. Let us not be the generation that looks back on this point and says, “We could have done more.”
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
This really is Parliament at its best, when we are united and speaking with one voice on the importance of saving lives, because this is where we could end up with this very grave debate and the situation in Bosnia Herzegovina. I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who clearly has intimate knowledge of the subject and a real passion to deter what could be a terrible outcome if we do not get moving, as the international community, in preventing further conflict, in-fighting and hatred, which so many humanitarians around the Chamber have mentioned. I also want to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who in this House has a history of stopping violence against women and girls, both domestically and internationally, and the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). I thank them for securing the debate.
Parliaments have a real role in sparking these debates and in galvanising Governments. We have seen that today. This morning we had the meeting and the briefing from Christian Schmidt, who has a background not just in the defence brief in the German Parliament but in the friendship group with the UK. It is fantastic that he made it such a priority to be here—at the invitation of the FCDO, the Minister, the influential Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, and all those who were there, including my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David), for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who all have a strong history in this area—to counter the beat of nationalism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale said. Mr Schmidt warned of a potential return to violence and fragmentation. We had a long discussion about the importance of keeping Dayton alive and going, but also of refreshing it, as it was 20-odd years ago.
I briefly want to put on record my background as a visitor to asylum seekers and refugees from the area, mainly young Kosovans, in the late 1990s. That is how I met my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and then came into politics myself—visiting youngsters in bed and breakfasts in London boroughs. When we visit children in our own constituency, we might have helped their parents as asylum seekers and refugees in the late 1990s.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Nationalism can be toxic, but there is another crucial ingredient in this potential catastrophe: the interference by other sovereign states, such as Russia and China, and the benign neglect by states that should know better. That is what creates the catastrophe. Will the hon. Lady address that a little in her remarks?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Member for making that point, because the role of the US has come up in the debate. We call the agreement the Dayton peace accords for a reason. I hope that the US will join us and put on record its commitment to maintaining the Dayton legacy.
Catherine West
I was coming to this, but I am happy to bring forward my bullet points for the Minister. Will she condemn the sale of arms to the Serbian police forces, which has been discussed? Will she condemn the role that Russia is playing in the wider picture, given that it was around the table originally for the Dayton peace talks? Can she give us her current assessment of the danger Russia poses in this situation?
We know that widespread bigotry and hatred can snowball into violence, destruction and ethnic cleansing. Through the international actions that we can all take now, rather than waiting for things to worsen, we can have a real impact, because we know that 26 years ago is but a blink of the eye when the feelings still run high. I was particularly moved by the comment of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that he had changed his position during the debates on the Irish question we had here in the 1990s and into the 2000s. He said that he had changed, and I wanted to emphasise our own experience of that conflict—I know that the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has experience of that conflict, too. We can change and we can hope to be the conveners of change.
My second challenge to the Minister is to ask what is the UK’s role? As the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who is no longer in his place, asked, what will Sir Stuart Peach’s remit be when he arrives in Bosnia? How will he support the work of Christian Schmidt, so that we can lead with the UN High Representative and not be undermined by players such as Russia? Will she respond to the question on sanctions? Are sanctions being considered in the effort to use every single tool available to us?
Tony Lloyd
If a sanctions regime is appropriate, does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the sanctions be finely targeted, so that they do not hit the people of Bosnia and even those in the Republika Srpska, but are directed at the authors of this nationalism, which is so unacceptable?
Catherine West
I agree with my hon. Friend and with the excellent approach he takes on Belarus. I know the Minister is aware of that. My hon. Friend has led in a number of the debates on sanctions in Belarus, and it is the same actor there. I say to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who challenged on the role of Russia, that this is the same sort of undermining of international action as we are seeing in Belarus. The sanctions response from the Government has been good and cross-party. I hope to see that in Bosnia, if the assessment is that sanctions are necessary.
I have two more challenges, and then I will conclude. What increased engagement and proactive work are being undertaken to prevent the slide into the rhetoric and violence of the past? At civil society level and at the economic level, what role can international partners play, both in promoting trade, which the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) talked about, and in promoting the role of civic society, which my hon. Friend the Member for Putney emphasised? Will the UK Government be prepared to continue to act as a convener to bring together the international community, given the tragic past? The right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham left us with the image of his interpreter and driver being assassinated during the conflict and he himself being at risk.
Let me conclude by saying that the world is watching us. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) reminded us of the immortal words of Elie Wiesel. We know that with Holocaust Memorial Day just a month or two away, the work that is done to prevent further loss of life is crucial. Now is the time to act. We must step up. We must, throughout all civic society, as well as through the use of our armed forces and others, put this on record: never again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
I start by thanking right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for their clear interest in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the western Balkans and for their often powerful and personal contributions to the debate.
Wendy Morton
I would like to make a bit of progress first. I have a huge number of questions to try to get through, but I will happily come back to my hon. Friend.
As this debate has highlighted, political developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina are of significant concern to the UK Government. I will endeavour to address all the points raised during my speech. The views expressed by Members of this House in relation to peace and security in the region do have an impact. The urgent question of 9 November and the discussion that followed were widely reported in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
After the devastating conflicts of the 1990s, Bosnia and Herzegovina has lived in peace for 26 years. This has allowed the country and the region to build stability and prosperity. The late and much-missed Lord Ashdown described the Dayton peace agreement as
“the floor, not the ceiling.”
It is a base upon which to build progress on issues of concern to citizens. Sadly, politicians who are more focused on maintaining their own positions have exploited that agreement.
As the system that underpins stability is undermined, we see tension spreading across the region. Milorad Dodik, a Bosnian Serb member of the tripartite presidency, has threatened to withdraw the Republika Srpska, one of two constitutional entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, from important state institutions. The High Representative, Christian Schmidt, has called that an attempt at de facto secession. The situation is as serious as we have seen in a long time.
President Dodik’s plan, which is clearly dangerous and deliberate, would undo much of the hard-won progress of the past two decades. It would isolate the Republika Srpska, increase instability and reduce opportunities for all citizens. We must not be complacent about the risk posed to peace and the long-term future of the country. The people of Bosnia and Herzegovina deserve a better future in a stable and prosperous state with strong institutions, and the UK is committed to helping them.
To address these challenges, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have today appointed a UK special envoy for the western Balkans. I am pleased that Sir Stuart Peach, well known to many in this House as a former Chief of the Defence Staff and then chairman of the NATO military committee, will take on the role. Members, including the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), have asked what his work will entail. It will involve promoting strong democratic institutions and open societies, helping to tackle serious and organised crime and other joint security challenges, and encouraging resolution of legacy issues such as war crimes and missing persons. The UK will also continue to lead work to advance gender equality and to implement the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. I am sure his appointment will be welcomed across the House—I sense that it has been welcomed this afternoon. It demonstrates the UK’s strong commitment to stability and prosperity in the region and to deepening our bilateral relationships.
As a demonstration of our commitment, my ministerial colleagues Lord Ahmad and Baroness Goldie were both in Sarajevo yesterday. They discussed with ministerial counterparts how together we can safeguard Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty and state integrity. Baroness Goldie marked Armed Forces Day to show our support.
On EUFOR, we worked hard with our allies in the UN Security Council to renew the mandate for the EUFOR stabilisation force, and we welcome EUFOR’s ability to continue its ongoing work. The mandate is an important deterrent against those with malign intent who would seek to damage regional stability.
Tony Lloyd
For the record, there has to be a strong EUFOR presence, but it has only 750 people at the moment, so it is too small. It is not up to this country alone, but what can we do to ensure that we empower EUFOR to act as a real deterrent?
Wendy Morton
The most important thing to recognise is that we have renewed the mandate and we welcome the ongoing work that EUFOR can continue. We recognise that it is an important tool and an important deterrent against those with malign intent.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
As I mentioned, I sat through those debates and questions in the 1990s, and I am not prepared to sit through more months and years of prevarication. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) proposed that we should simply make an offer of British armed forces to pump prime the whole of NATO to make a considerable enlargement to the force, because that is what is necessary. The force needs to be moved into the Brčko corridor, which is the main enclave that we need to protect, and to deter the detachment of Republika Srpska armed forces. Otherwise, it will happen—it is happening. It is being encouraged by Russia and we are not doing enough to deter it. We just want a deterrent force; we do not want to start a war.
Wendy Morton
Okay. As I explained, I believe EUFOR is an important deterrent, but I recognise that Members of both sides of the House are keen to understand and learn more about what the UK is doing, so let me make some progress.
On the position of the High Representative, we are fully committed to supporting the High Representative as he works with people in-country to implement the civilian aspects of the peace agreement. We support the use of his executive powers, should the situation require it. As Members are aware, he is in London today and I know that he spoke with many Members this morning. I also met him, as will the Foreign Secretary, and our embassy team in Sarajevo remain in close contact with him. That visible and vocal support for the High Representative is essential. We will not allow those who wish harm on that country to undermine his authority.
Many right hon. and hon. Members raised NATO and asked about the meeting in Riga this week. NATO must play an enhanced role in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the western Balkans. At the NATO foreign ministerial meeting in Riga, the Foreign Secretary focused attention on Bosnia and Herzegovina and encouraged greater engagement from the alliance. She called on allies to contribute personnel to the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo and to support work to counter disinformation and strengthen defence reform. The UK will do its part. The UK also offers defence assistance to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s armed forces in support of capacity building efforts and their partnership for peace goals.
On Russia and disinformation, we are seeing a worrying pattern of Russian behaviour aimed at stopping Bosnia and Herzegovina moving closer to Europe and NATO. The UK takes that extremely seriously and will continue to call out aggression. We are also backing projects to counter disinformation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the wider region, including giving support to independent media organisations.
Bob Stewart
Regarding Russia, when I was in Bosnia as part of the United Nations protection force, a Russian man called Victor Andreev was very much part of the headquarters. I suggest that we invite the Russians to send people, and possibly even forces, to join any units that we deploy there, because that might be a way forward.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful for my right hon. and gallant Friend’s suggestions, and those of other Members on both sides of the House, which I will consider.
I will touch on Serbian language that is seen as provocative elsewhere in the region. We wholeheartedly condemn that divisive and inflammatory rhetoric, just as we condemn deliberate attempts to destabilise the region. We have consistently urged Serbia and its neighbours to play a constructive role in the region.
I am conscious of time, so I will crack on and try to answer as many questions as I can. Many Members rightly raised the danger of genocide denial and glorifying war criminals. The UK has consistently urged all political leaders in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the region to reject hate speech; to condemn any glorification of the perpetrators of genocide and war crimes; and to respect the verdicts of international and domestic courts.
My visit to the Srebrenica Memorial Centre earlier this year, and my meeting with some of the mothers there, is an occasion that will stay with me forever. We cannot allow such crimes to be repeated anywhere in the world. We are working with the Srebrenica Memorial Centre to establish a centre for genocide research, prevention and reconciliation. In the UK, we support the work of Remembering Srebrenica, which works tirelessly to raise awareness.
Many Members raised sanctions, which are an important part of the UK’s toolkit for the western Balkans to address corruption and destabilising activities. Obviously it would not be appropriate to speculate about future sanctions targets, as to do so could reduce their impact, but we are in close contact with our partners and we discuss all aspects of our response to the challenges.
I assure Members that preventing sexual violence in conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina remains a priority through our strategy. We are supporting a number of successful projects. There are many other areas that I would have liked to cover, but I will follow up in writing to any specific questions.
The citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina want and deserve security, peace and hope for the future, yet divisive rhetoric and escalating intercommunity tensions threaten those dreams. There is no short-term solution, but as I have set out, the UK has a vital role to play alongside a co-ordinated and focused international response. We remain committed to the success of Bosnia and Herzegovina and all its people.
James Sunderland
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the debate, when reading from awful notes, I made an assertion about the perpetrators of the Srebrenica massacre. In the interest of absolute balance and objectivity, noting current sensitivity within Bosnia, I would like to state for the record that that is contested. I therefore pay tribute to all those across the whole region who have done so much to maintain peace since 1995, and I defer to the position of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
Alicia Kearns
I, too, start with a slight correction, as I should have declared in my opening speech that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Bosnia and Herzegovina. I apologise for that absence of mind.
I am humbled by and grateful to every Member who has spoken today, and I am proud of the unified voice with which we have spoken. I thank the Minister for her comments and commitments. I am sure that there are more conversations to be had.
We have sent an undeniable message that we stand united with Bosnia; we stand behind the Dayton agreement and the High Representative; we stand against hatred and division; and we want an uplift in our NATO HQ deployment in Sarajevo. We believe that there is hope and that violence is not inevitable.
I hope that our voices are heard in Bosnia and the Balkans, and I damn well hope that they are heard in Moscow. We can do more and we have a duty to do more. Today, we have started to live up to that duty. I hope that we will not divide on the motion, so that we can send a unanimous message to the world that we stand with our friends in Bosnia.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As Catherine West said earlier, this debate has been Parliament at its best. The UK Parliament remembers Srebrenica today, and not just today—we remember Srebrenica every day.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the concerning political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina; expresses its support for institutions set out in the Dayton Peace Agreement, and the office and work of the High Representative, Mr Christian Schmidt; and supports continued efforts by the UK Government and its allies to ensure peace and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to uphold the provisions of the Dayton Peace Agreement.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Before we come to the motion on economic crime, I will pause momentarily as people leave the Chamber and others come in.
Economic Crime
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the devastating impact economic crime has on individuals, businesses, families and society; considers it unacceptable that the cost of money laundering alone exceeds £100 billion a year according to the National Crime Agency; is concerned that in the wake of the Pandora Papers leak there is inadequate transparency, regulation and resources in place to effectively tackle this severe problem; and calls on the Government to bring forward legislative proposals to tackle economic crime as a matter of priority, integral to which are provisions to introduce a criminal offence for failure to prevent economic crime, reform Companies House and introduce a beneficial ownership register for the overseas owners of UK property.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for selecting the motion for debate. I am also grateful to all those who supported the application, and I particularly thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for working with me on it. The reason why we have secured such wide support for our debate is the growing recognition, concern and understanding of the enormous problems we are facing as a result of economic crime.
The Government produced an economic crime plan in 2019, but as the period it covers comes to an end next year, I think we should all reflect that that plan has not resulted in a successful crackdown on economic crime, but instead we have witnessed frightening and real growth in such crime. Far from bearing down on such wrongdoing, we have seen it mushroom across our economy, infecting our society, our security and our public sphere.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I put on record my tribute to my right hon. Friend for her work yesterday on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, dealing not just with the bigger subject, but with the detail of the Bill’s clauses. Does she agree with that, although it is our economy, in a globalised environment we should worry about economies abroad, including the Russian influence? I refer specifically to the recommendations of the Russia report, which deal with a number of financial instruments.
Dame Margaret Hodge
One of my growing concerns is that economic crime and the laundering of money into the country—particularly, one suspects, of a lot of Russian money that has probably been stolen from the Russian people—is having an influence right through society, and I will reflect on that later in my contribution.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the right hon. Lady. I just want to say that this money is not all from Russia; it is closer to home. I make this point because it is important to do so. I am sure that the right hon. Lady is aware that Northern Ireland has paramilitary groups that have become experts in money laundering. Does she not agree that information sharing UK-wide—it is no different here or in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—is imperative if we are to stop those terrorist, criminal, evil thugs living the high life, which they do while the communities that they live in live in fear?
Dame Margaret Hodge
I completely concur with the sentiments expressed so powerfully by the hon. Member.
We are now, sadly, one of the jurisdictions of choice for money launderers, criminals and kleptocrats. We do not just tolerate, but—unwittingly, perhaps—facilitate economic crime. Our Moody’s credit rating has fallen a notch, specifically because of the
“weakening in the UK’s institutions and governance”.
Fraud, an important element in economic crime, now affects one in 15 adults, and it too often destroys the lives of innocent victims who are just normal, trusting citizens.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I have a constituent who had a dormant company that was taken over by criminals and used to defraud others, but Companies House says that it cannot do anything about it. LinkedIn is colluding, with a whole lot of false company information, which helps to undermine the situation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Companies House should be able to do more, and that it is damaging its own reputation?
Dame Margaret Hodge
One of the specific areas on which we make a recommendation in our motion before the House is the reform of Companies House. The situation of my hon. Friend’s constituent is just the sort of situation in which Companies House ought to be able at least to verify and possibly to pursue the wrongdoers.
Economic crime is often the facilitator of other crimes—from people trafficking to drug smuggling, and from terrorism to corruption. It does not just enable other crimes; it impacts on our national security. Dirty Russian money laundered into the UK is spreading like a spider’s web through our society. It is used to buy influence and to control our football clubs, our vital infrastructure and, more recently, our politicians and our politics. Today, we want not just to lay out the problem, but to put forward three pragmatic reforms that the Government could adopt—not tomorrow, but today. These are three oven-ready policies that together could have a significant impact in both preventing economic crime and punishing its wicked perpetrators.
We have become the destination of choice for a number of reasons. First, we have a very weak regulatory regime after decades of deregulation. Introducing reforms to our corporate liability regime would start to address the inadequacies in the regulations we have inherited. Even where we do have clear laws—this is my second point—our enforcement agencies are both inadequately resourced and risk averse in their policing of our system. Lack of money and fear of failure drive their decisions, and unlike America, we let criminals get away with it. Reform of Companies House would constitute the start of creating a tougher enforcement regime. Thirdly, we still allow a lack of transparency to flourish, giving wonderful cover to ne’er-do-wells and making it difficult to follow the money. If we cannot follow the money, dirty money triumphs.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on arranging this very important and very timely debate. I am only sorry that I cannot stay for the whole thing because I am due to speak elsewhere.
I want to pick up on the point the right hon. Lady was just making, and ask whether she would agree that it is not enough to improve the three things she is talking about to come up to some sort of international standard. Because of the existence of the City of London—a huge economic asset in Britain’s economy—we actually have to be better than almost anybody else, given not just the benefits but the risks that that creates.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I completely agree with the important contribution that our anti-corruption tsar has made in the House today. I think it is a really short-term view to believe that our British economy can flourish on the back of dirty money. We will flourish if we clean up the act in the City of London and it again becomes a trusted institution.
I just wonder how many Panama papers, Paradise papers, Pandora papers, FinCEN—Financial Crimes Enforcement Network—leaks, laundromat leaks, Falciani leaks and Luxembourg leaks we need for our Government to wake up, stop mouthing warm words, which they do a lot, and start acting with tough measures to bear down on this dangerous crime and this terrible trend.
A proposal to toughen up the regulatory framework was included in the 2015 Conservative party manifesto. The party pledged—I hope I am quoting accurately—to create a criminal offence where companies
“fail to put in place measures”
to prevent economic crime. The Government launched a consultation that lasted four years, and then parked the issue in the long grass by referring it to the Law Commission. I understand that the Law Commission is about to report, but we need and want corporate liability reform, and we want it now.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a delight to work with the right hon. Lady on this particular issue. As part of the Law Commission consultation, there is talk that, instead of there being a criminal liability for failing to prevent economic crime within a corporation, it may be downgraded to a regulatory offence. Does she agree that that would not create the deterrent we need for these corporations, such as NatWest, which is facing a fine of £340 million for not properly monitoring money laundering in this country in a Bradford jewellery company? Does she agree that there must be a serious sanction, such as a criminal offence, where individuals could be locked up for not doing the right thing in these areas?
Dame Margaret Hodge
Again, I am pleased to see such unity across the Chamber today. I completely agree that if it is not made a criminal offence and there is no direct liability on the individuals concerned, it simply becomes a business cost and will not change the behaviour or conduct of those big corporations. I concur with the hon. Gentleman.
I was going to use the example, although I probably do not need to, of the Serious Fraud Office’s failure to successfully prosecute the Barclays bank case. As many observed at the time, that case showed that under our existing law the bank could not be held accountable for the actions of its employees, and the chief executive could not be held to account for the actions of the bank. Nobody could be held to account. These reforms would change that by introducing a vicarious liability condition and bringing in a “failure to prevent” clause. The Americans do it; they have much tougher laws that hit the corporations with criminal, civil and regulatory penalties, and they secure many more resources.
Our second ask is about starting the work to strengthen our enforcement by reforming Companies House. Creating a public register of beneficial ownership was an important move when David Cameron was our Prime Minister, and a huge step forward. In one year, the register was accessed more than 2 billion times, but the data, as we all know, is often inaccurate or incomplete. Global Witness did an analysis in 2018 that showed that 10,000 companies declare a foreign company—mostly linked to a secrecy jurisdiction—as the owner of the company, 335,000 companies had no beneficial owner and 9,000 companies were controlled by beneficial owners who each controlled more than 100 companies, so they were nominee beneficial owners.
It takes £12 to set up a company—it is ridiculous. That is why so many UK companies keep appearing in all the leaks we get of wrongdoing. Our lax enforcement leads to tragedies worldwide, and we need to do something about that. That is why these reforms could be funded by raising the fee. If we quadrupled the fee and charged 50 quid to start a company, we would raise a huge amount of money that we could put into reforming Companies House and ensuring that it had unique identifiers for the beneficial owners, and powers to investigate and interrogate.
My third proposal, which I will deal with very quickly, concerns the introduction of a property register. Buying a property through a shell company registered in the British Virgin Islands is the easiest way to launder money into the UK. There are very few good reasons for maintaining anonymity, but plenty of bad ones: not just money laundering, but avoiding stamp duty, inheritance tax and other taxes.
It is difficult to put a number on that, although many people have tried, but I will share one fact with the House. All London boroughs have had an increase in their electoral register over recent times; the only borough that has not is the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the reason being that such a large number of properties there are bought through shell companies by foreign owners that there are fewer residents there today than there were 10 years ago.
Catherine West
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that distortion of the London housing market is to the detriment of all our constituents? I note there are other hon. Members present who represent London seats. Across the UK, but particularly in London, where we see such extreme homelessness and overcrowding of children, that really needs to be addressed.
Dame Margaret Hodge
Absolutely. That is another really important point; hiking up the prices at the top of the market obviously has an impact right through the housing market here in London. Some terrible instances have been uncovered in the various leaks. The Crown Estate, for example, sold 120 of its properties to companies registered in 14 different tax jurisdictions, demonstrating again the way in which the system is abused. Those are people such as Vladimir Chernukhin, who owns a residence in Regent’s Park through a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, or James Ibori, a Nigerian governor who was prosecuted here for fraud and money laundering, and who had property in Hampstead and Dorset. In the recent Pandora Papers, the Crown Estate bought a £67 million property from the Aliyev family, who are the well-documented abusers of their rule in Azerbaijan.
In 2015 we were promised a register of beneficial ownership for properties owned abroad. There was a consultation in 2016 and a draft Bill in 2018. It was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech in 2019, and again in the G7 meeting in Cornwall in 2021, but we still have not got a Bill, although it is my understanding that such a Bill has been written and is literally gathering dust on the shelf. The problem is enormous, and if we fail to act robustly it will overwhelm us. Economic crime is costing us our international reputation as a trusted and respected jurisdiction. If that trust goes, our ability to develop and grow our economy will be fatally curtailed.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is talking about the amount of resource we commit to this, but has she seen the statistic that the National Economic Crime Centre put to the Work and Pensions Committee, which is that fraud now accounts for a third of crime in the UK, but for 1% of police resources?
Dame Margaret Hodge
Throughout this, when we talk to the enforcement agencies, they all minimise their expenditure on economic crime and have other priorities. That statistic is very frightening, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for bringing it to the attention of the House. I think it can be reflected in all four or five agencies that do a similar job.
We will never achieve sustainable prosperity on the back of dirty money. With the economic crime plan drawing to a close, this is the perfect opportunity for the Government to put the proposals in our motion before the House, so that we can debate and enact them, and embark on that long and difficult journey of ridding this country of the cancer that is growing in our economy and society. Across the House we will then all feel that we are not just debating, but that we are acting to expel economic crime from the Britain we all love and seek to serve.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate, and to follow the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who is such a champion in this area. I add my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important and timely debate. This debate is urgent, particularly since, as the right hon. Lady said, the Government promised and intend to bring forward legislation in the form of an economic crime Bill. All we are asking for are things the Government have promised to do in the past, so we are pretty much on the same page. We must ensure that the Bill is brought forward quickly, because it is so important, and that it is brought forward in the same form. I am disappointed that there are not as many speakers as I might wish on the Government Benches, but it is wrong to think that this is not a political priority for many of my colleagues, and for Members across the House. It is good that 40 parliamentarians signed a recent letter on the issue to the Prime Minister, urging action in this area.
Perhaps some parliamentarians, and perhaps the public at large, do not feel that economic crime affects them. Perhaps in many people’s eyes it is a victimless crime, but nothing could be further from the truth. For evidence of that, we should look at the 27 victims—men, women and children—who drowned in the channel only a few days ago. They were victims of economic crime. Of course, the reasons people want to come to this country are manifold, including fear of persecution, or for a better life—whatever those reasons may be—but those journeys are enabled because they are facilitated by economic criminals, and people who benefit from economic crime. These are organised criminals.
If someone steals a little bit of money—£200 in cash, say—they can go down the pub and spend it or do something else with it. If someone benefits from a huge amount of money—these organised criminals are benefiting by millions of pounds from the business of people trafficking—how do they use that money? They cannot simply buy a house, which the right hon. Lady referred to, or a yacht; people cannot spend their ill-gotten gains in any way these days because there are checks and balances—some checks and balances. If a person goes to buy a house, somebody will say, “What’s the source of your moneys?” However, they do not check too far, and we cannot follow the money as far as we need to follow it.
If we want evidence of the importance of this, we should listen to the people who really understand economic crime. Paul Stanfield, the head of organised crime at Interpol, said recently:
“It’s all about the money. If you want to tackle organized crime, you have to go after the money.”
The small boats crisis is probably the No. 1 domestic political priority in the UK. It is a humanitarian crisis and it is an economic crime. In fact, there are two levels of economic crime in this area. One is the fact that organised criminals are taking huge amounts of money—thousands, or tens of thousands of pounds—from desperate people to cross a continent. That is an economic crime in itself, but that money is then laundered, and much of it is laundered through this country.
For evidence of that, we should listen to the Prime Minister’s corruption tsar, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who said exactly this in an intervention a few moments ago. This country is used because of some of our lax regulations, as the right hon. Member for Barking mentioned, but also because of the concentration of advisers in this country, be they lawyers, accountants, consultants—these other people who facilitate the rabbit holes that this money goes down so that it can then be used for legitimate purposes. That is what happens with this money, but the starting point is these terrible crimes.
Of course, we are talking not just about huge international organised criminals, but about domestic organised criminals. Recently, a Yorkshire “businessman” called Manni Hussain had an unexplained wealth order made against him by the National Crime Agency for £10 million. He presented himself as a bona fide businessperson, but he has connections with some of the worst organised criminals in this country. Murderers, drug dealers—all these people are facilitating crime in this country, and we are leaving open loopholes that we could close and clean up our economy.
Of course, there are lots of vested interests in this whole argument. Some would say, “Oh my God, all this dirty money will stop coming into the UK. It’ll damage our economy.” In my view as a businessperson, nothing could be further from the truth. What businesspeople need is a clean economy. That is the foundation of our economy—a clean framework that investors have confidence in. The more our law upholds that framework, the more successful our economy will be. But even if that money was good for this country, we are not interested in it; it can go somewhere else. We must show leadership in this context on the world stage.
And this is about the world stage. If anyone wants to look at how these rabbit holes work and how pernicious this activity is for billions of people on our planet, they should read the wonderful book “Moneyland” by Oliver Bullough. It is a fantastic book. He starts off with a very interesting story about former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and talks about this huge house he has—one of many palaces that he built around Ukraine, all from the expropriation of moneys from the Ukrainian people. He diverted money that was supposed to be there for health services and many other public services into his own coffers, and he eventually ended up in exile in Russia. He is a very brave man, Oliver Bullough, and he explains how this all happens. He explains very clearly how it could not happen without the rabbit holes that are enabled in this very country. It is not just the UK, to be fair. Some are enabled by our overseas territories and Crown dependencies—the Government are bringing forward, after a lot of pressure from people such as the right hon. Member for Barking, open registers of shell companies in those jurisdictions—and by many other countries, too. The US is very guilty, with places such as Dakota allowing similarly lax regimes. We want other countries to do the same. Such opportunities are facilitating some of the worst crimes known to humanity: people trafficking; drug dealing; organised crime; terrorism, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned; the expropriation of public money; and the impoverishment of nations.
A report from Oxfam in 2000 talked about how money was being stolen by kleptocrats in developing nations around the world to the tune of £50 billion a year. We have big debates in this House about our international aid budget and whether it is used wisely. Significant amounts of money—our taxpayers’ money—are put into developing nations. In that year, internationally £50 billion went into developing nations. Can we guess how much money was moved out of those very countries by kleptocrats, officials and politicians? It was £50 billion—so, in one door and out the other. We are facilitating that and we can close it down.
Whether it is £10 million for the smaller scale organised criminal or billions of pounds for international kleptocrats, we have the opportunity to close those things down. The money is no use to anybody unless they can spend it. To spend it, they need to be able to salt it away and legitimise it. That is what our shell companies do under the lax regime of Companies House, where £12 sets up a company with no checks and balances, no identity checks and no requirement to check who is the beneficial owner. Trusts are not included, so money can go into trusts. There is no oversight of trusts in the UK or UK property. The Government, rightly, say they will bring forward a register of overseas entities. The City of London—its knowledge, its power, our legal firms and our accountancy firms—facilitates this stuff to the tune of £100 billion a year in the UK. As the motion sets out, £100 billion a year is money laundered in the UK. That figure is directly from the National Crime Agency and that is not even the full extent of economic crime—it is that big.
Paul Stanfield says that we have to follow the money. The point, ironically, is that our system stops us from following the money. That is what we need to address. The key to all of this is transparency. Everything needs to be more transparent. That is the point about Companies House. Companies House should become not just a register but a regulator, with checks and balances to make sure that the people setting up companies are the beneficial owners of those companies. It is quite straightforward: as the right hon. Lady the Member for Barking said, a simple levy on top of the £12 would provide the resources to do that. We need a register of overseas entities, so we can see who is buying UK properties—again, the Government have committed to doing that.
I want to come on to transparency in other contexts. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was involved in a business until March this year when it was sold. Last year, when things looked pretty tough, we took on quite a significant coronavirus business interruption loan. We never drew it down. We repaid it without touching it when we realised that the recession was not going to be as hard as we thought on our business, but it was a significant amount of money.
Whether we are talking about CBILS or the bounce back loan scheme, the Government decided that it would not make these loans subject to public scrutiny—loans which were providing Government support, effectively enabled by taxpayers’ money. If I, as a businessperson, had taken taxpayers’ money, I would have no problem with that being open to public scrutiny. It is good if it is subject to it—what is wrong with that level of transparency? The Government decided not to make that transparent, but we had to provide some level of transparency because of our association with the European Union.
Bloomberg got hold of this issue and scraped the data on 45,000 companies—hon. Members can read its report, which was in the paper last week—and there were some very startling cases. One included a £4.7 million loan that was drawn down by a company that existed only two days prior. There are lots of different concerns about those programmes. Some of that loan may be legitimate, although it seems unlikely that it was bona fide, because the company would have had to be a viable trading company before that time. However, if all this stuff is open to public scrutiny, it could be looked at by people such as us and those who have more time to do it, such as journalists, who do a fantastic job in this area by highlighting these issues—where would be without the investigative journalists who look at this kind of stuff? That would deter people in the first place from drawing down a loan in such circumstances and, because people would know that they would be pursued, it would reduce the level of fraud. This is a key issue for the Government in relation to the furlough scheme, the bounce back loan scheme and other areas. I cannot see how it would be detrimental to our economy to have more transparency in these areas. I am thinking particularly of Companies House reform and the register of British overseas entities.
My final point on the motion is about the offence of a failure to prevent economic crime. That is so important. This is an extension of the “failure to prevent” offence that exists, for example, for bribery—so if an organisation does not put checks and balances in place to make sure that its staff are not bribing other people or customers to try to get work, for example, it is breaking the law. That is a criminal offence, and it relates to tax evasion as well.
We want to extend that offence to cover economic crime. That means—I spoke about the NatWest example—that if a company does not put measures in place to prevent money laundering, so there are not checks and balance throughout an organisation to prevent that, it has corporate criminal liability. As I said, I would like to see that as individual criminal liability, because that would provide the biggest deterrent for senior executives and mean that they clamp down on the wrong kind of behaviour in their organisation. We can look at the construction sector for an example. This is a bit tangential, but the number of accidents and deaths on building sites dropped markedly only when directors suddenly had personal criminal liability over health and safety on their construction sites. Personal liability makes a big difference. Otherwise, this is seen as just a cost of doing business.
The “failure to prevent” offence does not just cover money laundering, and that is key. If we spoke to the banks about this, they would say, “We have that covered already under money-laundering rules”, but this is not just about money laundering. The corporate criminal offence is a tougher penalty and is available to the Serious Fraud Office rather than just the regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, and it covers other crimes.
As many people know, in the all-party group on fair business banking we have dealt with the fall-out of the financial crisis in relation to RBS, the Global Restructuring Group, Lloyds, and HBOS Reading in particular. Let us look at the HBOS Reading scandal. For 10 years, Lloyds and HBOS denied any wrongdoing and that a fraud was happening in their organisations before it was proven in court in 2017, and four people went to jail for 47 years. It is the only case in the history of fraud ever proven against a bank in this country, and we know there has been more than that. Nevertheless, there was denial for 10 years.
Over that 10-year period, going back as early as 2007, victims were saying to Halifax Bank of Scotland and then to Lloyds bank, “There is fraud going on in your bank.” They were ignored; it was denial after denial. When an individual within Lloyds, its senior risk manager Sally Masterton, wrote a report on it and gave it to the bank, it sacked her. It shut her down for five years, saying that she was not a cogent witness and that she was acting for her own reasons rather than on a company instruction. That turned out not to be the case, and the bank had to retract the claim and compensate her in 2018. If we had the “failure to prevent” offence, that could not happen. People in those organisations would be accountable at a senior level, and that would clamp down on such behaviour. It would be a tremendous deterrent. It would also work with lawyers and accountants, because they too have responsibility to prevent economic crime. Instead of being facilitators, they would be required to stop this stuff happening.
We are currently having plenty of conversations in debates about how we can prevent scams such as push payment fraud, particularly on platforms including social media. The “Online Harms” White Paper refers to user-generated content rather than corporate-level scams. The Government are talking about expanding the Online Safety Bill to include those, but a requirement to prevent economic crime could work for Facebook, Google and the rest of them as well.
At present, platforms such as Google can simply take money from the highest bidder. They accept “pay per click” for companies to advertise investment opportunities, without checking whether they are bona fide companies. They do not check whether a company is Standard Chartered or someone posing as Standard Chartered; they simply take the money and let the company advertise on their sites, with no checks and balances and no requirement for them. If there were a “failure to prevent economic crime” provision, they would not be able to do that. They would have to put in place those checks and balances to ensure that the companies concerned were the companies that they were purporting to be, which, as we all know, is not beyond the wit of those platforms. This would tackle many different hugely important issues at the same time.
I have spoken for far too long, Madam Deputy Speaker, but all these matters are so important. The Government could introduce the necessary measures very quickly, and I urge them to do so. I believe that they will, and when we see that legislation, Members on both sides of the House will be championing them from the rooftops.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), and I welcome his collaboration with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). They both advanced powerful arguments in opening the debate.
I want to focus briefly on one specific point. I mentioned, in an intervention on my right hon. Friend, the Work and Pensions Committee’s inquiry into pension scams, which reported a little while ago. This is an important area of economic crime, and our report highlighted in particular the menace of online scams, which the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. As he said, the Online Safety Bill presents a unique opportunity to address this menace. The Prime Minister has said that tackling online fraud is one of the Bill’s main aims, but the current version, which is undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny, leaves out the major part of the problem. That must be changed.
The campaigner Mark Taber gave evidence to our inquiry. He found the compare-uk-bonds.co.uk fake comparison site on Google, and reported it to Google in May last year. An elderly woman who had recently been bereaved contacted him after losing more than £200,000 to that scam site on Google in September. Google finally took it down in December. People think that if they find something on Google, somebody must have vetted it, but of course they have not. Google gets paid by scammers, and then also gets paid by regulators to warn about the scammers people find on Google. It is a pretty good business. I have no idea why Google did not take that scam down in May. Was it because the company was disorganised? Was it because it wanted to keep the advertising income coming in? Google will not say, and I do not imagine that we will ever know. What this shows us is that the law must be changed. If it is not changed, crooks will continue to ruin the lives of thousands by advertising scams online. That would be an unforgivable failure of Government.
Last year, the Pension Scams Industry Group estimated that £10 billion had been lost to pension scams by 40,000 people since the pension freedoms were introduced by George Osborne in 2015. I welcome some of the recent changes that have been made to help. The new Pensions Schemes Act 2021 will restrict the statutory right to transfer, which was given in the pension freedoms, where there are signs of a scam. The High Court recently ruled that the fraud compensation fund could be used to compensate pension liberation scam victims. Those are both welcome steps, but we need to do more. In particular, we must tackle the menace of online scams. The insurer Aviva told the Work and Pensions Committee that in the six months before it gave us its evidence it had found 27 scam websites purporting to be Aviva. Having found them, it takes quite a lot of effort to get them taken down, and there are always victims before the sites are removed.
In the Online Safety Bill, the Government are tackling user-generated scams, but not paid-for scam adverts. That needs to be changed, because it is the scam adverts that are the heart of the problem. That is not just the view of my Committee and the Treasury Committee; it is the view of almost everyone outside Whitehall who has looked at this, except for the internet companies. The Governor of the Bank of England told the Treasury Committee that the risk to consumers from online fraud
“could be tackled through the Online Harms Legislation, but the experience so far...is that there is strong resistance in other parts of the official sector to extending the legislation to financial services. This is a serious problem.”
He is absolutely right.
The City of London police wrote to the Work and Pensions Committee in May that the exclusion of advertisements and cloned websites from the Online Safety Bill
“leaves a gap in the protection provided for the public”.
The City of London police went on to call for
“legislation requiring a duty to protect and/or corporate criminal liability for failure to prevent across all online and telecommunications enablers.”
The Financial Conduct Authority told us in evidence to the Committee that
“financial harms should be included in the Online Safety Bill to ensure that online platform operators take responsibility for the material which they disseminate which could cause consumers financial harm.”
That is absolutely right as well. The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee in July that
“one of the key objectives of the Online Safety Bill is to tackle online fraud”.
I welcome and applaud that pledge, yet the Bill as it stands entirely misses the major problem of online fraud, which is paid-for advertising.
Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com, Sir Richard Branson and Dawn French have all had their name or image used in online scams. They all wrote to the Prime Minister last month calling for the Online Safety Bill to tackle scams, pointing out that the current Bill will penalise someone who posts a scam, but not someone who pays to post the same scam. They went on to say that the
“Government has said it wants to eventually tackle scam adverts through changing advertising regulation—but this will have to go through a lengthy process of legislating in the face of fierce opposition from a powerful advertising industry.”
We understand that work to address the problem of scam advertising is going on somewhere—the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, I think—but on a much longer timetable. If that is the track we go down, it will be years before anything changes, and thousands more people will lose their life savings in the meantime.
Kevin Hollinrake
That is a really interesting quote. Who is in the “powerful advertising industry”? The only people I can see benefiting from scams posted in the paid-ads section of Google are those at Google, not those in the advertising industry.
Stephen Timms
That hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I know that Ministers have been looking into this issue. As I understand it, there is now a very complex infrastructure around advertising. Google is at the end of the chain, but there are all sorts of agencies and intermediaries—a whole industry—in the middle. I imagine that letter is referring to the fact that all those people in the middle would say, “No, don’t touch this because it’s working very well.” It is working well for them, but I am afraid that for the public it definitely is not. If we wait in the way suggested in the letter, it will let crooks and scammers continue to ruin people’s lives for years to come. That would be a catastrophic Government failure. My plea is for Ministers to change course now, face up to the undoubted technical challenges, and legislate in the Online Safety Bill.
Finally, I agree with a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking in opening the debate: this is an existential threat to the UK economy. Financial services account for a big part of our economy, and we have a worldwide reputation and provide a great deal of expertise and high-quality services. If people conclude that they can no longer trust our financial services sector because fraud is being allowed to run rife, that is a massive threat not just to that industry but to our entire economy. We really do need to tackle economic crime, face it head on, and make the kind of changes that my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton have argued for, to protect not just the customers of these services but the entire economy.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I shall try to hobble on one leg, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing this important and timely debate. Frankly, it is time that we addressed some of these issues for once and for all.
Before I begin, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. For 10 years before I was elected, I worked in fraud and financial crime with some of the largest institutions—banks, insurers, telecoms companies, charities and, in fact, the Government—trying to bear down on fraud and financial crime. I seconded members of my team to the national economic crime command and the joint money laundering and intelligence taskforce, and the organisation that I worked for chaired the joint fraud taskforce.
During that period working in fraud and financial crime, I learned that there is huge willing on the part of the industry, the Government and law enforcement to work together to tackle some of the issues at the heart of this debate. I think those in the industry are willing to go a lot further in putting time, resource, money and energy into tackling some of these issues, but in return they want their investment to be backed by action from the Government and law enforcement. They want to feel heat and to see people’s collars being felt.
Let us be absolutely clear: without peril, this is just a game of whack-a-mole in which one rogue actor—one criminal—can simply shut down their activity and start again. They collect their money, move on and make liquid their funds until that route closes, and then they just open another. That is the game they are currently playing—and it is a game to them. We should be dismayed that it is happening and being allowed to happen. As Members have already said, funds are being raised through serious and organised crime. They are the result of scams and low-level frauds, of insider information leaks, of hacks, of the exploitation of breach data, of corporate espionage, and of people deliberately exploiting the state. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton pointed out, stopping the money flows is essential to stopping this activity full stop.
I recall a meeting about three years ago with the NCA, which had mapped an organised crime group and how it enabled and then laundered the proceeds of economic crime and of very human crimes. The OCG was linked to people traffickers. As my hon. Friend mentioned, those same groups are now exploiting vulnerable people and transporting them across the channel in dinghies. It was linked to low-level scams in which a vulnerable grandmother might get a phone call and suddenly have her life savings emptied out of her bank account. It was tied to complex financial marketing activity on the dark web, where credit card breach data is sold for criminals to exploit. It was also linked to drug imports and county lines drug running. The chain ran from grandmothers’ houses, across the channel, across the dark web, into the property market and all the way to the poppy fields of Afghanistan.
I make it clear that this is one group, and there are many of them. It is not a ragtag bunch of criminals trying their hand but a deeply successful, multimillion-pound business—a tax-avoiding business, too—and there are many of them out there. These people sought and exploited every single opportunity to enrich themselves, with no care for the misery or economic cost they left behind.
These criminal gangs result in real challenges for people. Insurance premiums are higher, delivery costs are inflated, public funds do not reach those who need them the most, small businesses are cratering and life savings are stolen. They also overinflate the property market, which is important. I recall sitting in the office of the NCA’s director of economic crime in Vauxhall. He pointed out of the window to the shiny new skyscrapers opposite and said, “Not a single one of them has curtains or a kettle in the kitchen, yet they change hands on an almost weekly basis for millions of pounds.” This is forcing people out of the property market. If we hope to ensure that some of our cities are ever again affordable for families to live in, we need to bear down on this activity.
These organised crime businesses are hugely complex. They run as cells, and they are intelligent. If part of the business is shut down, they know how to get up and run again. As reprehensible as they may be, I am slightly in awe of how clever they are and how they operate. But the reality of these businesses is wrought in the ruined and damaged lives they leave behind. I come back to my first point: without peril, we will simply not be able to act against them. The current whack-a-mole approach means that, for every snake’s head we chop off, another one appears.
As the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) said, fraud is the No. 1 volume crime in the UK. It is epidemic and completely out of control. We simply do not have a grip on it. It is all well and good for the City of London police to run a day of action and pick up the 10 most-wanted fraudsters in the UK, but there are 4.6 million cases of fraud each year. Where is the peril that will stop the behaviour? When the industry, the biggest banks, insurers, charities and the Government pull together to share information to bear down on those fraudsters, why are collars not being felt more regularly?
The Department for Work and Pensions ran 11 raids this morning to shut down an OCG’s £4 million benefit scam. I am glad to see there is some work happening in this area, but there is plenty more to do. We should be considering the economic equivalent of antisocial behaviour orders—economic crime prevention orders—to put those who commit fraud on notice by putting a mark against their name and saying there will be serious consequences if they do it again.
We should be looking again at how we can better empower information sharing and action against those responsible for these crimes. Taking away the ability to launder their funds would remove a good part of the incentive of people who run small boats, and taking away a county lines drug operator’s ability to trade out their earnings will do exactly the same. We need to look more closely at enablers. Thankfully, Companies House now restricts the amount of personal data available to the public on its website, which was a key enabler of fraud, but I join other colleagues in saying that we have to tread a fine line between encouraging entrepreneurship by making it easy to set up a business and making the UK a dynamic place in which to operate, and creating an easy entryway for criminality and allowing criminality to disguise itself with a veneer of acceptability.
The other key point on enablers relates to online safety and education, which will be key. Young people are sharing information right, left and centre on social media without a care for how it is going to be picked up and used against them. The point about advertising that was mentioned earlier was also spot on. The online harms Bill is absolutely where we need to be addressing this issue; to add to the layer cake of voices calling for the change that colleagues have mentioned, the director of the national economic crime command has also suggested that fraud should be included in that Bill.
In drawing to a close, I wish to thank the right hon. Member for Barking and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for calling this incredibly important debate. The measures they are calling for in an economic crime Bill are proportionate and fair. We need to inject not only as much transparency as we possibly can into the system, but peril, too; we need to be making sure that criminals feel that heat. I believe the reforms they have suggested will get us there, and I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s views.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) for speaking and giving his expertise on this. I, too, have a bit of a gammy ankle, so I will try not to fall over. He will find that if he sits on the Front Bench and leans against it, he will get a wee bit more support and will not have to wobble so much. That is a top tip from my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who has had a similar affliction recently.
This debate is incredibly important and timely, and I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing it. I feel as though this has almost been economic crime week for me in this place, because our Treasury Committee took its final evidence from Ministers on this issue on Monday. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister for Security and Borders were very clear that not enough is being done. That is probably the biggest understatement in this House this week. It is very evident that not enough is being done, because these crimes are going unprosecuted, victims are increasing in number and it feels as though nothing very much is happening to address it. It is incredibly worrying, as we see when we look at the figures, which indicate the scale of this. It can only indicate the scale of it because, by its very nature, economic crime can be very difficult to count; that money is gone—it is disappeared and it vanishes, never to be seen again.
I very much support the suggestion that all Members who have spoken so far have made of an offence of a failure to prevent economic crime. That is crucial, and I would tie it in to the online safety Bill that is coming, because that is a golden opportunity. The evidence we have had from almost every person who has come before the Treasury Committee to talk about this has been, “You have to get this in the online safety Bill.” They do not believe another good enough opportunity will come along quickly enough to deal with this issue. The Government are very good at saying, “Oh yes, when parliamentary time allows—we will look at this soon. We will do this in good time.” But we need to see it now, as this has been drifting long enough and action needs to be taken on it.
The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) mentioned that the Governor of the Bank of England, every other financial institution that has come before us and sent in evidence, independent experts, journalists and organisations such as the Royal United Services Institute—all kinds of people from all kinds of backgrounds—have said that more needs to be done, that there is an opportunity here and that it would be huge neglect on the part of the Government if they failed to take the opportunity that is in front of them right now. It is an opportunity that they have presented to this House in the form of this Bill. If they miss this chance, it will be a matter of significant detriment to all our constituents.
The biggest barrier is the lack of enforcement. The Government will point to very good laws that they have on money laundering, and things that they feel are useful to tackle financial and economic crime more broadly, but enforcement levels are woeful. The figure of only 1% of police resource going to something that is an increasing problem in our society is part of that. The enforcement agencies are doing their best, but they are a hotchpotch; they are a patchwork of different agencies all working away in their own wee world and not managing to connect all of these different things. People are drowning under suspicious activity reports, while those who ought to be filing them are not even bothering. There is a huge gap in enforcement.
As I have said ad nauseam in this place, in Bill Committees and everywhere else, Companies House is the front door to this. Graeme Biggar, the director general at the National Economic Crime Centre, spoke to the Treasury Committee on 25 January—I cannot believe that it was that far back, but it was—and said:
“It can be too easy to set up companies here, as we have seen repeatedly over the years. We have done some analysis recently on some of the laundromats that have come out of Russia and the former Soviet Union, and a disturbing proportion of the money that comes out of those laundromats—not much shy of 50% in one case—were laundered through UK corporate structures.”
He pointed out that not all of that money will have been in the UK or will have touched the UK, but it is the corporate structures themselves that have been facilitating this economic crime.
The Royal United Services Institute has said:
“The ease with which a company can be formed in the UK—within 24 hours, without showing any ID and for a mere £12—has contributed strongly to the UK corporate structures emerging as the money-launderers’ vehicle of choice over the past decade.”
It says the “vehicle of choice” for “money launderers”. This Government have proposed Companies House reform, but, while welcome, it does not go nearly far enough. It makes no sense to me that, if I want to apply for a driving licence or a passport to do my self-assessment tax return, I have to go through a whole gamut of Government verifying schemes. That is not the case, as I understand it, for setting up a company. All it will cost me is £12. The information that I put into the Companies House register may be complete and utter guff, because it has no one checking that information; it is just a repository of that information.
Some statistics were given in the reading material that has been pulled together. Four thousand beneficial owners are listed in the persons of significant control register who are under the age of two. I am sure that there are many prodigious under two-year-olds out there, but I do not think that they really should be beneficial owners of companies. There are five beneficial owners who control more than 6,000 companies. Again, there should be some kind of limit to the number of directorships that beneficial owners can hold, because it is very clear that these people can have no real role in the running of those companies, because there are far too many of them.
Even more worryingly, some of this has been facilitated through Facebook. A recent “File on 4” programme showed how people were being recruited as company directors via Facebook. Again, they had no role or responsibility in the company, but were being brought in as a means of making money. I ask the Government what they intend to do about this kind of fraudulent behaviour.
That is before I get to Scottish limited partnerships, which, again, I have talked about at length in this place. I pay tribute to Richard Smith, David Leask and Roger Mullin—my colleague who was in this place until 2017—for their constant plugging away on the subject of Scottish limited partnerships. The Government will say, and they would be correct to say, that since they brought in the reforms, the number of Scottish limited partnerships has reduced. However, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness pointed out, what has happened is a bit of a whack-a-mole strategy. As my good friend, colleague and employee Councillor Alexander Belic has said, the point of whack-a-mole is the increasing frequency of moles rather than an effective mole eradication effort. That is very true of financial crime and SLPs.
Many of those involved have moved to Northern Irish limited partnerships, English limited partnerships, trusts, other obscure company formations, or, as Colm Keena of The Irish Times has pointed out, Irish limited partnerships. There is therefore a wider consequence of this Government’s actions. I doubt very much that they informed the Irish Government that this was going to happen, only to leave them saying, “Oh, gosh, this is now on our doorstep. Now we have to deal with this international financial crime”. Some of those Irish limited partnerships had Scottish limited partnerships as their people of significant control, so it becomes a nesting doll of different companies, and we can never get to the centre of it and find out who really is in charge.
At the very heart of all that is this: if we reform Companies House, it will slam the door in the face of all of this. If we give Companies House an anti-money laundering supervisory role, if we tighten up the registration process, if we make it that a person has to prove that they are a real person before they can register a company, and if we put up the fees, we will take away a lot of this crime. The Government really should be looking at that very urgently, and the lack of urgency remains a significant concern to me.
I sat on the Bill Committee when the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill came through this House. The Government had a lack of interest in a great number of things, but it was funny how quickly they got interested in dirty Russian money when the Salisbury attack happened during the course of that Committee. All of a sudden they were very interested in doing something about that.
I also sat on the Joint Committee on the Draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill. We made very good recommendations and the Government replied, but they did not accept all of them—and now, tumbleweed. Nothing has happened; there is no urgency. When I questioned the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on Monday, I asked, “Are you actually going to bring it forward urgently?”. It does not feel urgent in the slightest, because there is nothing happening and nothing is changing.
The longer it goes on, the more I wonder who benefits from this delay. Is it the oligarchs and those to whom they donate? There are wider political implications of this delay—not just here, although there is an implication here for transparent structures such as unincorporated associations, which are set up in Scotland and fund parts of the Conservative party and the no campaign in Scotland.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
My hon. Friend clearly shares my concerns and those of the Electoral Commission about unincorporated associations. Among a number of other troublesome characteristics, those that meet the threshold for registration with the Electoral Commission are not required to conduct permissibility checks on a relevant donation—a donation meant for political activity. Presumably, she would like to see those very much tightened up.
Alison Thewliss
I would; we should have strong registration requirements for donations to political parties, and there should be no ways of circumventing them.
Whether the money turns up as millions of pounds in Conservative party coffers, leads to the House of Lords in the end, or is just laundered from Russia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine or any number of other countries involved in SLPs and money laundering, we should be worried, because this issue goes to the very heart and fundament of our democracy. If we cannot guarantee where the money goes, who it influences, where it ends up and who it benefits, we are in real trouble as a democracy, as well as an economy.
It is really important that the online safety Bill deals more with frauds, scams and misleading info. As the right hon. Member for East Ham pointed out, if people take out paid advertising that costs a penny, they will get away with a lot more than if they generated it themselves and did not pay for it. That seems fundamentally wrong.
There is a lot of information being put about out there. Google, Facebook and some other companies have all appeared before us in the Treasury Committee, and they really did not do much by way of accounting for the behaviour of people using their platform for activity such as allowing others to register as company directors, trying to sell goods online and defrauding our constituents, or offering financial advice—that is a regulated sector, which makes that very serious behaviour. No one should be giving financial advice unless qualified to do so, but if hon. Members were to look at Instagram, they would find all number of accounts offering this advice or that advice, saying “Take these shares out” or “Do this and put your money here”. All this activity puts people at risk, whether it is user-generated or advertised, and it should be regulated properly so that people cannot use such platforms to defraud others and profit for themselves.
The nature of this world is changing. Lots of people are conducting their business on Instagram now, including lots of entirely legitimate people and businesses, many of which suffered when Instagram went down because they could no longer sell their pizzas or whatever they were selling online. We need to be mindful that the platforms have a responsibility to the people who use them to ensure that they cannot easily part with their money and be defrauded. Although faster payments are great in a number of ways in facilitating financial transactions, once that money is gone, it is very hard to get it back.
At the moment, the banks often get the money back for people, but there is no consequence for the platforms that facilitate the fraud. They do not have to pay anybody their money back. They allow this to happen and they get to just hold their hands up and say, “It’s not our fault. People should know better”. That is not good enough. The platforms are facilitating a good deal of this fraud. The Government will be failing in their duty to all our constituents if the online safety Bill does not address those levels of transactions where people are doing lots of business that way nowadays—if it does not hold to account those big, wealthy providers and platforms, both the ones that exist just now and those that will emerge in future, and make sure that they take responsibility for their actions.
I urge the Government to listen to everybody who has given evidence on this matter to the Treasury Committee, to the Work and Pensions Committee, and to our APPGs—to listen to those experts and not miss this opportunity to take action to protect our constituents, our economy and our democracy.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing this very important debate. I thank them for all the work they have done over the years on these issues, and indeed on wider issues of fairness in the economic industry. I have had great cause to be grateful to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton for the assistance he has afforded some of my constituents through his expert advice from his experience on the all-party parliamentary group on fair banking.
The right hon. Member for Barking spoke very powerfully about the problem of money stolen from the Russian people being laundered in this country, saying that it impacts on our national security in a number of ways because it is spreading its tentacles through our society. She was intervened on by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who drew attention to the problem of money laundering through paramilitary, which unfortunately we still have as a result of the legacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Lady made the very important point that that enables other crime, and that, in her words, if you cannot follow the money then dirty money triumphs.
There was an important intervention on the right hon. Lady from the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who told us that one third of crime in the United Kingdom is now economic crime but only 1% of police enforcement time is spent on that. I certainly know from my time as an advocate depute in the Crown Office in Scotland that there were often not really adequate resources for us to prosecute economic crime properly. It is decades since I was a prosecutor, but I know that a huge amount of work has been done in Scotland to give the Crown Office more powers to do that. Prosecuting economic crime is very challenging, and Government need to put a lot more investment into making sure that it is done effectively.
Importantly, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton explained why economic crime is not a victimless crime. He cited the tragic death of the 27 people who drowned in the channel trying to reach our shores last week as a good example of organised crime and economic crime taking a terrible toll on its victims.
The right hon. Member for East Ham outlined the need to tackle online fraud. He was absolutely right in identifying the online safety Bill as a missed opportunity do that. He rightly took aim at Google for its failure to take down a scam when it was well aware that it was there. As he said, that shows that the law must be changed. We are all well aware of the problem of the huge power of organisations such as Google, Facebook and Twitter, and it is really important that the Government put real teeth into legislation to make sure that they do not facilitate crime—particularly, in this case, economic crime. I was interested to hear that the Financial Conduct Authority has said that financial harms should be included in the online safety Bill.
It was also interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who speaks from a career of some length in the regulation industry and therefore with some authority about what needs to be done and the challenges of doing it. He made a powerful point about the damage that has been done to our great cities as a result of the overinflation of the property market. In my own home city of Edinburgh at the moment, most people can no longer afford to be a first-time buyer. I know that is a huge problem in the great city of London as well. Tackling economic crime is one way that we can bring house prices down.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) spoke knowledgably from her lengthy experience in relation to these matters and drew our attention to the fact that, ultimately, Companies House is the front door to this problem, and existing corporate structures facilitate economic crime. She gave very good examples of the hoops we have to go through to do things such as getting a driving licence, but how easy it is for people to tell a pack of lies and misrepresent themselves in setting up a company. She raised again the issue of Scottish limited partnerships, which have been raised over the years by a number of Members of this House, most notably my friend and former colleague, Roger Mullin.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central put the question succinctly for the Minister to answer this evening: where is the urgency in dealing with these matters? We have had many debates about these issues in the six and a half years I have been in this House, and I know they have been going on for much longer than that. The Government have made a number of commitments, but why are they not honouring them? Where is the urgency?
Then there is the troubling question of who benefits from the delay to the Government tackling these issues. We know that some pretty dodgy Russian money has found its way into the coffers of the Conservative and Unionist party. As my hon. Friend said, there are wider political implications here. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) continued in this debate to raise the matters of concern that she has raised previously about the failure to properly regulate political donations.
Although we have had a short debate, it has been very knowledgeable, and the Members who have contributed have done so from a position of strength and of knowledge of this matter. The helpful briefing prepared for this debate basically tells us what needs to be done. It has three big asks for an economic crime Bill: creating a register of overseas companies that own UK property; reforming Companies House to ensure it can monitor, verify and investigate suspicious companies; and reforming corporate criminal liability laws to ensure that enablers are held to account. The question for the Minister is: when will that economic crime Bill be brought forward?
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and all the all-party parliamentary groups that are responsible for securing this debate today. What a great warrior my right hon. Friend has been on this issue over the years.
This issue matters particularly in the United Kingdom because we have one of the biggest financial sectors in the world. That is not only a great asset to the country in terms of wealth, employment, tax revenues and so on, but it gives us an opportunity and a responsibility. It is an opportunity, because how we regulate that can set an example around the world, but it is also a responsibility, because if our standards are too lax, and we allow the UK to be an easy home for illicit finance, that also sends a signal of a very different kind around the world.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, said, every day our constituents are assailed by fake texts, emails and scams trying to con them out of their own money. It is extremely difficult for our constituents to know what is genuine and what is not when receiving such communications. That is why it is essential that we act and use the opportunity of the online harms Bill to crack down properly on this kind of consumer fraud. At the moment, that is not the plan. There is a gaping hole in that Bill, and the first thing I want to put to the Minister is to accept the strength of feeling across the House that it has to be strengthened.
With the release of caches of documents, such as the Pandora papers and their predecessors, the UK and its overseas territories are far too often mentioned as a place where illicit funds can find a home.
We are about to go into a winter in which people will face not only rising prices but rising taxes, but time after time, we see reports that billions of pounds of illicit funding are washing through our country. The contrast between the obligations of those who struggle to make ends meet and those who see our property laws and institutions as vehicles for laundering money could not be more stark. It is an issue not just of financial probity and tax revenue—though it is certainly that—but of national security and should be treated as such.
If we are a welcome home for the proceeds of looting and kleptocracy, what does that say about the rule of law or our standing in the world? The Prime Minister’s recent performance on the issue of standards in this place suggests that he has scant regard for rules and responsibilities, but we already knew that. We know what he thought of the rules last Christmas when he told the rest of the country that they could not gather, as there are now reports of one Christmas party, maybe more, while the rest of the country was trying to obey the rules. The fight against money laundering and fraud is too important to be let down again by the belief that there is one rule for them and another for everyone else.
It is not an easy battle, because we are dealing with very rich people who will employ the most expensive lawyers in town to intimidate those who criticise them and try to silence them though financial exhaustion. We should pay tribute to the brave investigative journalists who have written about such things to expose what is happening, knowing that they will be aggressively pursued by legal actions designed, at best, to silence them and, at worst, to bankrupt them. But however rich the people involved are, we in this House can still act. We can decide not to sit back and let it happen. The measures advocated in this debate command strong cross-party support, so why are the Government not making more use of that support? Where is the urgency that hon. Members have called for?
Let us consider some of the individual measures that have been discussed. The Registration of Overseas Entities Bill has been on the stocks for years, but it sits in the sidings, not moving. We are approaching the fourth anniversary of when it was first promised, and it is more urgently needed now than then, yet when asked about the timescale, Ministers still wheel out the time-honoured bromide of “when parliamentary time allows”. They have had four years of parliamentary time, which is more or less a whole Parliament.
The legislation could play an important role in revealing the true nature of asset ownership, particularly the expensive London properties beloved of those who want to store their wealth here. Why will the Government not bring forward the Bill? Why does it keep being put on the back burner? Who in Government keeps saying no to it?
Shell companies are at the heart of mechanisms to hide the true nature of wealth—or perhaps more accurately, layer on layer of shell companies whose sole purpose is obfuscation. We have heard some figures about the registration of companies, including that there are 4,000 owners under two years old and that five beneficial owners control more than 6,000 companies. Companies House is a registrar that lacks the powers to do any serious policing or regulating of who registers companies. Plans for reform have been announced, which the Minister will no doubt go through in a few minutes, but they have not been implemented.
The aim should be clear: to ensure that Companies House is a guardian of propriety, rather than simply a library of data where there are no real checks on the quality of that data. No legitimate business owner has anything to fear from that kind of reform, but the people registering thousands of companies for the purpose of obscuring real ownership do. I urge the Minister not only to say what is planned for Companies House but to ensure that it is actually implemented. The sponsors of today’s debate rightly put Companies House reform at the heart of the fight against money laundering and fraud.
What of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia? Where is the Government’s response to the measures advocated in that? Here there is not even a pretence of action. In fact, the report said, “If you’re determined to look in the opposite direction, then perhaps it’s not a surprise that you haven’t found anything.” The Government keep looking away in the hope that this issue will go away, but it will not.
Two weeks ago, the shadow Security Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), wrote to his opposite number asking what checks there had been on the almost £2 million of funds from Russian donors to the Conservative party. Does the Conservative party ask any questions at all when receiving this money? Why do Conservative Members think that their party has been such an attractive destination for this money, and what is it doing to Government policy? For example, who is there left in the Business Department who can still take a decision on the Aquind pipeline? How many Ministers have had to recuse themselves either because they have been funded or because they have already pronounced on the impending decision?
The third element called for today is greater corporate responsibility when it comes to money laundering and fraud. This already exists for tax evasion, for example. A company could not get away with saying, “Well, we were looking the other way—we didn’t know” when it comes to tax evasion. This was debated during the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021, which went through the House this time last year. Of course, any new corporate liability laws have to be carefully thought through, but the law should not act as an incentive for chief executives and senior executives in companies to claim ignorance about what is happening in their own organisations. We saw that time after time during the LIBOR scandal when these titans of the finance industry testified one by one that they had no idea what their traders were up to. The question facing the Government is: if corporate responsibility is right for tax, why should it not be right for fraud?
Underlying these specific points is a broader issue that should focus our attention. A number of times the Chancellor has said that he wants to put competitiveness at the heart of post-Brexit financial regulation. Having hung the financial sector out to dry when negotiating the Brexit deal, the Treasury now dangles the consolation prize of deregulation in front of it—the “Crackerjack” pencil for cutting off market access from the European Union—but at what price? Regulation was changed in the wake of the global financial crisis right across the world to protect the public in different countries, and the consequence of the Chancellor’s post-Brexit search for a consolation prize for deregulation should not be to put the public at greater risk. What kind of signal is it to send around the world to say, “Come to Britain because we want to make the referee weaker”? That is not even a signal the financial sector itself wants.
New fields are emerging. Cryptocurrencies have grown hugely in recent years. That has not been discussed much this afternoon, but it is hugely important. Their growth poses a genuine challenge to regulators and central banks right around the world. Where do the Government stand on the regulation of cryptocurrencies? Is it the case that crypto exchanges are being encouraged to base themselves outside the country so that we do not have to face up to these regulatory questions and responsibilities? Washing our hands of this issue is not good enough if the result is that those exchanges are based abroad and are beyond our reach in regulatory terms, without its making any difference to their ability to operate in the UK market. We have to be alive to the dangers of fraud and money laundering through new methods and innovations, and regulation has to keep pace with these market innovations. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are telling the financial regulators that crypto exchanges that operate in the UK should be regulated in the UK? Is that the Government’s position?
This is an important debate, and it has shone a light on the inadequate efforts being made to protect the country from being seen as an easy place to store or to launder illicit finance. Despite the persistence of the problem and all the words said about how serious it is, the Government have dragged their feet on implementing measures that could command cross-party support. This is too serious an issue for that approach to continue because, as I have said, it is not just a matter of money; it is a matter of national security. It should be treated as such, and that is certainly the approach the Opposition take to the issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lee Rowley)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate; it has been a good and constructive one and I am grateful to all those who have contributed. In particular, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who has done extraordinary work in this area for so many years, first on the Public Accounts Committee—I had the privilege of sitting on it a few years after the right hon. Lady, but her reputation went beyond her time there—and now in the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax that she is pursuing. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for the extraordinary work he continues to do for so many people, referred to by other hon. Members today, through his all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking. I thank them both for securing this important debate.
I have heard many important points today underlining the evils and dangers of all forms of economic crime—fraud, corruption, tax evasion, laundering, terrorism, potential people-trafficking, organised crime, drugs and the expropriation of public money. I agree with them. Economic crime is every bit as insidious as hon. Members have so cogently argued today. I reiterate that the Government are committed to continuing to build a framework that will deter such crimes and provide the genuine accountability that hon. Members have so accurately outlined through this short debate.
Several hon. Members have outlined some of their own personal experiences from their constituencies, and I know and accept that economic crimes not only represent a significant cost to the economy, but have real-life implications for individuals out there. That is something we must not forget about. I have seen it in my own constituency; just a few months ago I dealt with a gentleman from one of my towns, Killamarsh, who had had £20,000 taken from him in a telephone-based scam. We had to struggle to get that money back from the bank in the first place, but it should not be the responsibility of the individual, and the individual should not have to engage with their Member of Parliament, to get that money back through those processes. The money should never be taken in the first place, and we should prevent such problems before they happen.
On that basis, I accept the challenge here but, without taking anything away from the valuable and important points made today by all hon. Members, I highlight that it is important that the Government pursue a targeted and proportionate level of enforcement, focusing on achieving compliance from companies. I do not think anyone here today would disagree with that in principle. We must seek to counter financial crime, but we must also seek to protect the dynamism of the UK’s business environment.
The overwhelming majority of the UK’s 4.5 million companies contribute productively to the UK company, abide by the law and make a valuable contribution to society, and our responsibility to them is as important as the absolute requirement to crack down on the small minority who misuse the system. We must not undermine the strengths of our current systems nor overburden the law-abiding majority.
Notwithstanding that, the Government are committed to increasing the transparency of business so that those behind the abuse of companies can be identified and our law enforcement bodies can access the information to support their investigations. I know the main question today is one of timing; it is a question of how quickly we get there, and I appreciate the exhortations from hon. Members across the House. I assure them that both the Department I represent and the Government as a whole are working hard to bring forward appropriate measures as soon as we are able. We are taking it seriously, and further information will come forward on that as soon as possible.
I highlight that because it should be clear, based on things we have already done, that the intention is moving in the direction hon. Members want. Consultations were published a couple of months ago, and the Department has published responses on limited partnership reform, increasing transparency, and reforming the powers and role of Companies House—something the right hon. Member for Barking has highlighted throughout the debate. Members have seen a draft Bill to increase the transparency of overseas companies that own property in the UK, as referenced throughout the debate. As Members will know—many Members in the Chamber have been here longer than I have—by convention, the Queen’s Speech outlines the point at which the legislative programme comes forward, and we will do that in due course. I assure the House of the Government’s commitment in that regard.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Minister is making a good and important speech. His Department is looking at a review of whistleblowing regulations and legislation. We have heard evidence from across the House that fraud now accounts for something like a third or even 40% of all crimes, and around 40% of those crimes are identified only because of the work of whistleblowers. It is widely acknowledged that whistleblower legislation is falling behind that in other countries. Does the Minister agree that we must focus on that issue in the context of this debate? Whistleblowers are key to finding the information, so that we can crack down on crimes that are facilitated within these organisations.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that important point. Whistleblowing is a vital part of an ecosystem that works and has appropriate checks and balances. He correctly highlights the need to ensure that our frameworks are appropriate for that, and I know that Ministers responsible for that area of policy are listening to this debate and will take his points on board.
Let me take a moment or two to talk about context. Context is important because, even in a good-natured and constructive debate such as this, it is important to acknowledge some of the work that has been done, while also recognising that Members are keen for us to move further and quicker. In 2015, the Government legislated to ban bearer shares and create a public register of beneficial owners of UK companies, and that register has been a template for countries across the world. Indeed, a number of years on, we still get requests from other parts of the world about it. Since 2016 the Government have made significant changes to the way they tackle money laundering, particularly through new powers in the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which include unexplained wealth orders, new seizure and forfeiture powers for bank accounts, and new protections for the sharing of information.
Dame Margaret Hodge
We welcomed moves such as the introduction of unexplained wealth orders, but that is the point we are making: they came in with a great bang, we had one successful one, there was then a failure, and since then there has been almost silence and the power has not been used. There is also a fear of failure, which is related to the fear of having to carry the costs of that failure. The Government could legislate on that, as the Americans have done, so that people cannot claim those massive £2 million or £3 million costs if they succeed in the courts. There is also a lack of resources within the enforcement agencies properly to prepare for such cases. After the case that we lost, investigative journalists showed clearly that falsehoods were told in the courts that led to the failure of that provision. Unexplained wealth orders are a great idea, but they are not being used.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is an expert in this area. I hope we all agree that having such legislation in place is a step forward, and that the opportunity and ability to use it is a positive thing. As she has outlined, such measures have been used in some instances, but there have also been challenges. I hope that that use will continue to be made in appropriate areas, and I will certainly pass back her comments to the Ministers who are reviewing this issue.
In 2018, the UK’s anti-money laundering regime was reviewed by the Financial Action Task Force, and the UK received the best rating of any country assessed in that round of evaluations. None the less, there is an acceptance that more needs to be done, and as a number of Members have said, a number of months ago we published the economic crime plan. Progress was updated on top of that, with 52 actions to tackle economic crime, and the Government are on track to deliver 49 of those.
There have been achievements as well, including the commencement of reforms to the suspicious activity reporting regime, with £172 million frozen or removed from potential criminals in a recent reporting year, and the creation of the National Economic Crime Centre, which a number of Members referenced. Its work in the fusion cell in April 2020 highlighted potential criminality, potential challenges and potential investment fraudsters. We are also legislating in the current Finance Bill for the economic crime levy. I hope all hon. Members have seen the action to secure a unified position in the G7 on international anti-corruption efforts, including an agreement to implement and strengthen beneficial ownership registers.
Stephen Timms
The Financial Conduct Authority, which reports to the Minister’s Department, has made the case for the Online Safety Bill to be widened to include online fraud. Does he accept the strength of that argument?
Lee Rowley
I am just coming to that point, so the right hon. Gentleman pre-empts me, but I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.
We have heard some very good speeches in this afternoon’s debate. The right hon. Gentleman highlighted that point about the Online Safety Bill and the importance of tackling online fraud, which was also referenced by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and—albeit, if he does not mind me saying so, once he got through the cheap shots—the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). It is an important point to highlight.
Obviously, a specific Department is pursuing that legislation at the moment. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central, who sits on the Treasury Committee, heard on Monday that there is a variety of views about how best to deal with online fraud and which part of the legislation it should go in; I know that there was an active discussion about that in the Committee a few days ago. I will certainly pass back the comments made by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). I understand the importance of the matter that he highlights. I think all of us in the House agree about the challenge; the question is what it is appropriate to do and where it is appropriate to do it, but I absolutely heard what he and other Members said about the importance of trying to make progress in that area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) brings to the House a wealth of knowledge and experience in this area, which his very good speech highlighted. He highlighted the extensive work that has been under way for many years, notwithstanding the requirement for more to be done, and, again, the important point about the real impacts on real, ordinary people. This is not a theoretical crime; it is one that has real impacts in all our constituencies, which we will return to this evening and tomorrow.
I know hon. Members are keen to talk about where we are going. The spending review announced just a few weeks ago highlighted a significant amount of taxpayer spending specifically to reform Companies House, to improve the accuracy of the register, to clamp down on fraud and to strengthen the register in the long term. I hope that that announcement and the real money associated with it demonstrate the Government’s intention to make progress in this regard. On top of that, next year the Government will publish a fraud action plan and an updated economic crime plan, we will report on the review of UK money laundering regulations and the supervisory regime, and we expect to receive a corporate criminal liability options paper from the Law Commission. Officials continue to work on the three consultations from the start of 2021.
A constant theme throughout the work on reform has been a mantra from business and transparency organisations alike that the reforms are important and supported, but that they want to get them right. That does not mean we should delay unnecessarily, but we want to make sure that whatever we bring forward—I accept the challenge from hon. Members that they wish to see that happen quickly—we do it in the right way and as quickly as possible.
Let me spend a few minutes on the specific reforms and proposals that have been outlined today, particularly by the right hon. Member for Barking and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, who secured the debate. The Government will legislate to expand the function of the registrar of companies to include a new function to maintain the integrity of the register of companies and the UK business environment. The registrar will be equipped with new powers to carry out that function, including powers to query suspicious appointments or firings, and in some cases to request further evidence or reject the filing. Companies House will have more extensive legal gateways for data sharing with law enforcement, other Government bodies and the private sector. That will result in more efficient sharing of information on suspicious activity with law enforcement, and the establishment of feedback loops with other Government bodies and the private sector. It will make anonymous filings harder and discourage those who wish to hide their company ownership through nominees or opaque structures.
Alongside the legislative changes I have outlined, Companies House will change. The combination of legislative reform and the transformation of Companies House will help to ensure that the UK is the best place to start and to grow a business, and that companies on the UK register are run responsibly, transparently and with accountability. Hon. Members have noted the draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill, which has already received prelegislative scrutiny. That legislation will ensure the transparency of ownership and control of overseas entities that own property in the UK, about which concern was expressed.
The right hon. Member for Barking talked about proposed new corporate criminal liability offences. That is still under consideration. As hon. Members will be aware, the call for evidence a few months ago did not prove to be conclusive, so the Government have asked the Law Commission to undertake an in-depth review of the laws around that and to consider recommendations on proportionate opportunities for reform.
I recognise that hon. Members are keen for us to make progress—that desire was expressed very clearly today—but I hope they recognise that much work has been done. This debate has been a timely reminder of the view of this House on an important area and on the desire to make progress. I thank Members who have spoken today and the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to discuss this issue. I look forward to making further progress in the months and years ahead.
Dame Margaret Hodge
Very briefly, I want to start by thanking saying a big “Thank you” to all who participated in today’s debate for the issues they raised.
I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). It is a joy to work with him. He raised important points on developing countries, which we did not come back to. It is true, however, that developing countries lose three times as much through tax avoidance and corruption as they gain from international aid, so if the Government want to cut the international aid budget, they could take action there that would be hugely beneficial.
All Members talked about the importance of transparency. We are all at one with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) in wanting to include paid-for advertising in the online harms Bill. We are working across the House and I think there is huge agreement, certainly on the Back Benches, on that matter.
The contribution from the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) was excellent. He has some great ideas and I do hope he will join our all-party parliamentary group. We are always looking for new ideas that will help to strengthen the fight against tax avoidance, tax evasion and economic crime, so that would be terrific.
I am hugely grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for her constant support. She is dogged in pursuing the issues that are of importance to her. I am also very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who gave such an eloquent speech.
I just want to say three things in response to the Minister. First, of course most businesses and individuals behave well, but if we do not work to rid ourselves of criminals, kleptocrats and money launderers who infect our economy, we do a disservice to those who want to work legitimately. That was a point made by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), our anti-corruption tsar. The point is not, therefore, that this is the exception. If we do not deal with the exception, we break the rule. I hope the Minister will take that away. Secondly, while we welcome the Government’s general support, we will keep pushing. The proposed legislation is there and we want it on the statute book. Those are choices that the Government can make, and I hope they will make them. Thirdly, such things as paid-for fraudulent ads affect millions of people across the country in every constituency, and we have all had such cases. That is about individuals, but there is also the behaviour, for example, of the Aliyev family from Azerbaijan and the way they launder their money here and buy their privileges in our communities. That has to be stopped. That is not the sort of Britain that any of us wants to live in.
Weak regulation, poor enforcement and lack of transparency have an impact not just here in Britain, but elsewhere in the world. I will finish with this story. We all remember too well the terrible explosion in Lebanon, when ammonium nitrate killed a lot of people and destroyed that country. I was amazed to get a call a few weeks after it occurred from someone who told me that the company that owned the ammonium nitrate in the warehouse at the port in Lebanon was UK-registered. I gave a usual quote to demonstrate the lack of proper regulatory controls here. I was then inundated with phone calls in which I was told that not only was the company owned here, but it had a nominee beneficial owner based in Portugal or Spain—somewhere like that. The company said that it was dormant and had therefore not filled in HMRC returns. Further investigation by the Lebanese Bar Council and journalists in Lebanon demonstrated that, actually, the ammonium nitrate was not destined to be used as fertiliser in Mozambique; it had been brought by Russian Syrians to be given to Assad in Syria for barrel bombs to be used on the population in Syria. That is outrageous. We are facilitating that, and the tragedy it created is what makes it so important—so imperative—that the Government take action.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the devastating impact economic crime has on individuals, businesses, families and society; considers it unacceptable that the cost of money laundering alone exceeds £100 billion a year according to the National Crime Agency; is concerned that in the wake of the Pandora Papers leak there is inadequate transparency, regulation and resources in place to effectively tackle this severe problem; and calls on the Government to bring forward legislative proposals to tackle economic crime as a matter of priority, integral to which are provisions to introduce a criminal offence for failure to prevent economic crime, reform Companies House and introduce a beneficial ownership register for the overseas owners of UK property.
Digital Image Abuse
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this Adjournment debate. There can be few things more harmful, traumatising or abusive than for an individual to have a nude or sexually explicit image shared without their consent with thousands or even millions of people online. It is a horrific invention of the online world and an act of sexual abuse because it is done without the consent of the victim.
Technology is being used every day to invent new and even more grotesque ways of inflicting abuse, particularly sexual violence, especially against women and girls. I have secured this debate on deepfake and nudification image abuse because they are yet more forms of abuse against women and girls, their impact is not understood, and they continue to be largely unrecognised, especially in law and the legal sanctions that are available. It is a great pleasure to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice on the Front Bench, underlining the Government’s understanding of the need to address this issue.
For those who are unfamiliar with the term “deepfakes”, they are pornographic images that are created by merging existing pornographic content with the image of an individual—usually a woman—who has not given her consent. The resulting pornographic material is often violent, including illegal depictions of rape. In a similar way, nudification software takes everyday images—again, usually of women without their consent—and uses an extensive database of pornographic images to create a new image that makes it appear as though the original subject of the photo is nude.
The decision to create and share a deepfake or a nudified image is a highly sinister, predatory and sexualised act undertaken without the consent of the person involved. It has been a growing problem for the past 10 years, along with other forms of intimate image abuse. Reports of such abuse have grown by almost 90% in the past 12 months, coinciding—not coincidentally—with the lockdown, the pandemic and the changes in behaviour that are leaving many people at home for longer periods.
All forms of intimate image abuse have a significant and long-term impact on their victims, but I believe that deepfakes and nudification are particularly pernicious because the images are almost completely fabricated, causing psychological harm, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder—the list goes on. Some people experience an impact on their physical health or damage to their relationships. There may also be damage to their financial situation because of the need to take time off work or perhaps withdraw altogether from the online world, which we all know is a fundamental part of most people’s jobs in modern society. In some cases, there have been reports of self-harm and even attempted suicide among those who have been a victim of this heinous act.
I would like to turn specifically to the impact on individuals. This horrific abuse can happen to absolutely anyone, as a constituent of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) discovered in 2019 when she learned that her image had been uploaded to a pornographic website—an ordinary image from her social media that was then manipulated with software to make it appear as if she were in something completely pornographic. She was only alerted to the existence of the photos by an acquaintance after the images had been in circulation for years. The original images were taken from her social media, including photographs from her pregnancy.
I commend the hon. Member’s constituent, because she has had the courage to speak out about something that many cannot or feel unable to speak about. We can understand that much more closely when we hear her words explaining how she felt. She said that the images were “chilling” and that she still experiences nightmares. Speaking of the experience, she said:
“Obviously, the underlying feeling was shock and I initially felt quite ashamed, as if I’d done something wrong. That was quite a difficult thing to overcome. And then for a while I got incredibly anxious about even leaving the house.”
That reaction is typical; it leaves many women frightened to seek the help that they need.
Another victim—I will call her Alana, although that is not her real name—was identified by Professor Clare McGlynn in her work on “Shattering Lives and Myths”, a report on the issue. Alana also had faked intimate images widely circulated without her consent. Her testimony is equally harrowing; I will quote from it, because her words are powerful and the Minister needs to hear them if he is to bring the right solutions to this place. She said:
“It has the power to ruin your life, and is an absolute nightmare, and it is such a level of violation…because you are violated not only by the perpetrator but you also feel violated because society doesn’t recognise your harm. It is a very isolating experience, it is a very degrading and demeaning experience, it is life-ruining.”
Those are words that we should all listen to as we move forward, hopefully, to some solutions.
At the moment, deepfakes are not against the law, and people who use nudification software are not recognised as sexually abusing others. Deepfakes have been a shocking development in violence against women online. Let us be clear: this technology is almost exclusively used to inflict violence against women. Indeed, the cyber research firm Sensity found that 96% of all deepfakes are pornographic and that all the pornographic deepfakes it detected—100%—targeted women.
Offline, non-consensual sexual acts are recognised in the criminal law through the crimes of sexual assault, sexual abuse, rape—the list goes on, yet those responsible for developing and using technology in the online world and through artificial intelligence have been allowed to operate perniciously and with impunity, inflicting online sexual attacks on women and girls without criminal consequences. We cannot allow the online world to be a continuum of the offline world where women and girls experience even further new forms of sexual abuse and violence, which is why we need a new law to criminalise the taking, making and sharing of nude and sexual images without consent, including deepfakes and nudification. Those, surely, are some of the worst forms of such activity.
This technology is no longer the reserve of movie CGI experts. Image manipulation can be incredibly technical, but nowadays creating content of this kind is dangerously easy. With the development of nudification apps that can be downloaded on to a phone, anyone can create an indecent image of somebody without their consent in seconds. Apps and websites like these are not hidden in the recesses of the dark net, undiscovered; they are receiving millions of visitors. In the first seven months of 2021, one nudifying app received a staggering 38 million hits. This service has an interesting slogan: it is to
“make all men’s dreams come true”.
I am sure that is not the case, because I know that many of my hon. Friends would find this as abhorrent as I do. The app allows users to undress thousands of women without their consent, and runs an “incentive program” for users who share the links to their deepfakes, so users who get clicks on their deepfakes can nudify more pictures faster. It is disgusting, but it is not against the law. We have to act.
Deepfakes are widely regarded by academics as the future of violence against women online, but the existing law is woefully behind and largely redundant. Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, the so-called revenge porn legislation, in whose drafting I was involved, was a good step in the right direction, but it specifically excludes altered or photoshopped images and videos; and there are shortfalls in the current law because it does not adequately capture all motivations for non-consensually taking or sharing an intimate image. Although motivations such as sexual gratification and causing distress are covered, if the image that is being nudified was not originally private or intimate in nature, and if it was not shared directly with the individual in the photograph, it can be interpreted by law enforcement agencies as not having the intention of harassing or causing distress, even if it is shared with thousands of people on the internet. That is clearly an absurdity that needs to be changed.
Threats to share images have now been included in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and the Government are to be applauded for making that change, but if no threat to share is made, there is the potentially ridiculous scenario that the image could be legally shared if the motivation to share it was a joke, because such motives are not recognised in the current law.
I hope I have explained why it is so critical for the Online Safety Bill to effectively mitigate violence against women and girls online by introducing new criminal offences—and I would say that they should be sex offences—of the taking, making and sharing of intimate images without consent. I know that the Online Safety Bill is very popular—we heard about that in the previous debate—but perhaps the Government should be thinking of a set of Bills to be introduced together, rather than trying to put everything into one Bill. There might be a suite of Bills to tackle all the different issues, to prevent the risk of making one Bill so expansive that it becomes what is commonly known as a Christmas tree Bill. It is an innovative approach, which I am surprised that the Government do not take more often when dealing with highly complex areas that are interrelated.
In the tackling violence against women and girls strategy, the Government have committed to root out offending online as well as offline. They cite the forthcoming Online Safety Bill as the instrument in their efforts to do this, but reform of the laws on intimate image abuse is not yet included in the Bill. This oversight needs to be addressed before the Bill comes back to this House for debate, which we hope will be in the very near future. The current law is not fit for purpose. It is a patchwork of different elements based on defined motivations that can make prosecutions more difficult and that fails to recognise the nature and impact of image-based abuse online. If we have an Online Safety Bill that does not tackle the gaps in the criminal law, it will be a Bill that falls well short of what our constituents need.
The Law Commission has already developed a wide range of recommendations for legal reform in this area that are widely supported by industry stakeholders and experts, so I urge the Government to fast-track those recommendations through the Online Safety Bill, in recognition of the fact that we cannot wait any longer for legal reform. We need deepfake and the use of nudification apps to be outlawed in a comprehensive new law to criminalise the making, taking and sharing of intimate sexual images without consent. This change is long overdue, and I know that this Minister understands that point. I look forward to hearing his response to the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on bringing forward this incredibly important subject for debate. I know that she has long championed the victims of online abuse, and I would like to thank her for her efforts, which have contributed greatly to the Government’s thinking in this sensitive area and indeed to the reform of the criminal law itself. I shall try to summarise how I feel on hearing her speech and the contribution she has made by saying that she has an enduring passion for protecting society, especially women and girls, from the dark side of digital. I think that is the best way to describe what is so powerful about the way she speaks on this subject.
Turning to the specifics, deepfake is a term used broadly to describe software or processes used to splice or superimpose existing images on to source photographs or videos. My right hon. Friend has explained that this technology is now being used to create fake pornography, often without the agreement or knowledge of the victim. The images, though in themselves fake, can appear realistic, and their sharing can understandably cause deep distress. She rightly used the word “grotesque” to describe this practice, and she spoke movingly about the real-world impact that it has. She referred to the cases of constituents, and let me express my sympathy for every one of them. This must be harrowing and distressing for them, and we need to tackle it and stamp it out.
I should like to begin by assuring the House that the existing criminal law is fully equipped to deal with instances where the manipulated images depict children, who of course are the most vulnerable. These pseudo-images can cause real-life harm, as I said. They can be created from real images where a child was abused, and viewing the images creates a demand for those pictures, which leads to further abuse. I realise that my right hon. Friend did not primarily talk about children, but because of the issue of vulnerability, I think I should put this on record.
The Protection of Children Act 1978 criminalises the making, taking, sharing and distribution of indecent photographs and indecent pseudo-photographs of children. A pseudo-photograph is an image, whether made by computer graphics or otherwise, that appears to be a photograph. This offence carries a robust maximum 10-year prison sentence. Similarly, section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 captures the mere possession of such images, and that offence is subject to a five-year prison sentence. Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 created a new offence of possession of a prohibited image of a child, punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment. In addition, it created a new criminal offence to make illegal the possession of non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse, including cartoons and computer-generated images of child abuse, with a three-year maximum prison sentence.
Although it is right that there are specific and robust provisions in relation to faked indecent images of children, I share my right hon. Friend’s concern at the distress that the non-consensual creation and sharing of deepfake images can cause to adult victims. I assure the House that a person who shares such images of adults may—I stress may—in some circumstances be committing an existing offence.
James Cartlidge
As I was saying, a person who shares deepfake images of adults may in some circumstances be committing an existing offence. For example, against a background of domestic abuse, the posting or sharing of faked images could be captured under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. That offence was created specifically to target controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, including when the victim is an ex-partner. We are aware that deepfake images are being used for such disturbing and cruel purposes.
In addition, section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 prohibits the sending of an electronic communication that is indecent, grossly offensive or false, or that the sender believes to be false, if the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the sender is to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. Furthermore, section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send or cause to be sent through a
“a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”.
The same section also provides that it is an offence to send or cause to be sent a false message
“for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another”.
Such behaviour may also amount to harassment, which is also already an offence.
There has been a successful conviction in which a person was found guilty of harassment after uploading images of a colleague, fully clothed, alongside images on a porn site of women of a similar shape and build as the colleague. Additionally, those who encourage others to commit an existing communications offence may be charged with encouraging an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007.
I stress, though, that the Government recognise the concerns, set out so eloquently and clearly by my right hon. Friend, about the existing communications offences. The Law Commission considered the specific offences I have set out as part of its “Modernising the Communications Offences” review, to understand whether they needed to be reformed to better tackle abusive and harmful behaviours online. The Commission has now published its final report and recommendations for reform, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has indicated that she is minded to adopt the harm-based offence, the false-communications offence and the threatening-communications offence.
Alongside the use of existing and established criminal sanctions, there is a major role for the websites that host the images. It is encouraging that sites such as Pornhub, Twitter, Reddit and several others have all announced bans on deepfake images. Such images already violate community standards on major social media platforms such as Facebook. Some sites are already beginning to turn to artificial intelligence to police the images, rather than rely on users reporting them—an example of the determination to find effective and new ways to restrict the practice. For example, Facebook uses machine learning and AI to detect near-nude images or videos shared without permission on its platforms. Bumble, a dating app, has its own “Private Detector” safety feature, which automatically blurs a nude image shared in a chat. These are important steps to protect user safety and ensure that the images are tackled head on.
I hope that my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the law can, in most scenarios, deal with this behaviour, and that non-criminal interventions are developing all the time, but it is of course crucial that the criminal law keeps pace with new technologies as they emerge. We continue to keep these issues under review and when we see a problem with the criminal law, we act.
This Government have a strong record when it comes to protecting the public from the abuse of private, intimate imagery. For example, much as a result of my right hon. Friend’s assiduous campaigning, as she said earlier, in 2015 we created the so-called revenge porn offence at section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, and only recently, during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, we listened to the voices of victims of image abuse and supported provisions to extend that offence to capture those who threaten to disclose private sexual images with an intent to cause distress. That change has now been implemented and I am sure that my right hon. Friend, having fought so hard for the creation of the original offence, welcomes that significant extension of the protection of victims from image-based abuse. In addition, after listening to the victims of upskirting and the excellent campaign for change headed by Ms Gina Martin, we created new criminal offences in the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 specifically to address that intrusive and distressing behaviour. Offenders now face up to two years behind bars, and the most serious among them will be subject to sex offender notification requirements. We do listen and we do respond.
Mrs Miller
My hon. Friend has clearly gone through the shopping list of laws that can be used to try to guard against the misuse of intimate images, but in having a shopping list we have created a lot of gaps, too. For instance, upskirting may be unlawful but down-blousing is not. It is very difficult when we have law that is so prescriptive. Does he have sympathy with the need to have something more encompassing so that we can capture all forms of intimate image abuse and not have to play whack-a-mole by outlawing the latest devious way in which people try to abuse women and girls online?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and once again she highlights her incredible expertise on these matters. She will be aware that the way Parliament often works is that individual campaigns generate momentum and become specific offences—I would not use the phrase “ad hoc,” which is almost demeaning to those campaigns, which are incredibly important and powerful. That is the reality of how this place makes law at times, but she is right that we need to consider the broader picture. I know where her focus is, and I will be coming to the Law Commission, which will feed into that point.
My colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are busy preparing the online safety Bill, which will include provisions to tackle illegal and legal-but-harmful content, including criminal deepfake pornography, sexual harassment and abuse that does not cross a legal threshold. Under the Bill all companies will need to take action against illegal content and ensure that children are protected from inappropriate material. Major platforms will also need to address legal-but-harmful content for adults, which will likely include online abuse. Ofcom will have a suite of enforcement powers to deal with non-compliance, including fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying annual turnover.
The Joint Committee that is scrutinising the Bill is due to report before recess—by 10 December. We will table the Bill as soon as possible, subject to the parliamentary timetable, but we must not rest. I assure the House that we do not take concerns in this sensitive area lightly.
It was with those concerns in mind that the Government asked the Law Commission to review the law on the taking, making and sharing of intimate images without consent, to identify whether there are any gaps in the scope of protection already offered to victims. Importantly, the review has considered the law on manipulated images such as those created by deepfake technology and the protection that the existing law affords.
On 27 February 2021 the Law Commission published the consultation paper on its review, and the consultation ended on 27 May and put forward a number of proposals for public discussion. I understand the Law Commission is due to publish its final recommendations by spring 2022.
Although I welcome this opportunity to discuss the nature of developing technology and the production and sharing of explicit manipulated images and other offences, this is a complex area and it is right and proper that we should take time to consider the law carefully before deciding whether to add further to the raft of existing legislation that already addresses these issues. It is important, therefore, to allow the Law Commission to finish its work and to consider in detail and with care any recommendations it produces. The Government await the Law Commission’s findings with interest and will consider them carefully.
I believe my right hon. Friend has previously met the Law Commission but, if it would be of interest, I would be more than happy to arrange for her to do so again, based on its latest position.
Mrs Miller
I am slightly taking advantage of the fact that we have a little more time this evening. The Minister will know that the Law Commission has made its recommendations, which have gone out for consultation. That consultation finished a month or two ago, so it is not that the Law Commission will finish its deliberations in the spring; it has already finished its deliberations. Those recommendations, subject to any input from the consultation, should be available shortly. I still do not understand why he is not able to bring these recommendations forward at the same time as the online safety Bill.
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I wish to clarify this, as a lot of Law Commission reviews are taking place over time. There are two in this regard. The one I believe she is referring to is the one I mentioned earlier, which is the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport one. I believe that has reported and that the Department is now considering it, and it concerns malicious communications and other offences to which I referred earlier. The review on taking, making and sharing is ongoing and will report in spring next year. The point I was making to her was that if she wanted to contribute to that and meet the Law Commission—
James Cartlidge
My officials have noted her positive nodding of the head, and so I would be more than happy to set that meeting up, because she has great expertise. I can assure her that her concerns, and the views and issues raised by this House, will be taken fully into account when the Government consider those findings and the issue of whether reform to the criminal law is necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nadhim Zahawi
We are investing £2.7 billion of capital funding to improve provision for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities.
[Official Report, 2 November 2021, Vol. 702, c. 772.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi).
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct information should have been:
Nadhim Zahawi
We are investing £2.6 billion of capital funding to improve provision for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities.
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
Thursday 2nd December 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 View all Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 December 2021 - (2 Dec 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 2, page 3, line 27, leave out “as the Secretary of State considers appropriate” and insert—
“, including—
(a) the requirement for the local skills improvement plan to give due regard to relevant national and regional strategies, including in respect of the Decarbonisation Strategy,
(b) a requirement for employer representative bodies to publish a conflicts of interest policy for all those involved in approving plans or allocating funds which records actual or perceived conflicts of interests, and
(c) anything else the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This amendment sets out conditions for employer representative bodies. The amendment would require that employer representative bodies publish a conflicts of interest policy and give regard to national strategies (including the Decarbonisation Strategy).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Efford. We will try not to give you any unpleasant surprises this time.
This is a relatively small but important amendment, which has three aspects to it. Given the exemplary cross-party work undertaken in another place on local skills improvement plans and climate change, we believe that the Bill can go further to ensure that, as a nation, we meet our commitment to the natural environment. It is therefore crucial to ensure that LSIPs give due regard to the decarbonisation strategy and that employer representative bodies produce plans with due diligence given to committing to ensuring that we have green skills for the future across local labour markets.
If we are to meet the UK’s emissions target of net zero even by 2050—we already know that to be a challenging and potentially insufficient commitment—it is essential that green jobs are created and that that is a key focus of the local skills improvement plans in every single area across the country. One reservation expressed in our previous debates is that the different chambers of commerce and employer representative bodies will have different priorities. The amendment, in the first paragraph, seeks to ensure that, whatever the priorities of the chamber of commerce, it addresses the decarbonisation strategy. If it does not have the expertise itself, it needs to avail itself of that to ensure that the plans move us towards net zero. Once again, this demonstrates the need to align skills policy with national strategies across Departments—in this case the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—so that LSIPs do not become silos.
The second paragraph of the amendment would require employer representative bodies to publish a conflicts of interest policy for all those involved in approving plans or allocating funds, to record actual or perceived conflicts of interest. This is an incredibly important proposal, because the Bill places responsibilities and duties on—predominantly, we expect—chambers of commerce in a statutory fashion. I think that is unlike anything we have expected them to do before—unless the Minister wants to draw my attention to something. Chambers of commerce are not statutory organisations, but they are now taking on a role that appears to have statutory status.
Many people at senior levels are involved in chambers of commerce. They are in there because they want to make their local economies better and to improve the opportunities for businesses in their local area. It is also perfectly possible, however, that they will have an agenda about the industry that they are in or represent. Therefore, if they are to take on a more statutory-looking role, it is important that we are aware of what their conflicts of interest might be. If a local skills improvement plan suddenly features policies to do with a certain industry, we need to know who put the plan together so that we can consider why they might have done so. It would therefore be basic best practice for a local skills improvement plan to include a declaration of any interests or potential conflicts of interest.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is appropriate that I declare an interest again: I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a governor of Luton Sixth Form College. Many local authorities have third-party declarations, where councillors have to declare any potential conflicts of interest regarding the funding decisions that they are making, even if a partner works for a charity that is getting a council grant. It should be the same with regard to employment representative bodies and their members, so that we have a clear and transparent understanding of where funds may be allocated, and where there are potential or perceived conflicts of interest.
Mr Perkins
Precisely—I could not have put it better myself. In fact, I do not think that I was putting it better myself. If a chamber of commerce has, for example, a tree surgeon as its chair, and the local skills improvement plan has policies on attracting skills in tree surgery and no other does, people might consider that an agenda has been driven. There are all kinds of other examples. There is nothing negative about tree surgery—we all know how important it is—but people would need to understand why it was in the policy and whether there were any other factors to consider. In recent weeks, there have been real concerns about the allocation of Government funding, who was getting it and on what basis, who was talking to who, who was donating to who, who was signing up to who, and who was the best pal or a publican of a friend of who. In that context, it is important to ensure that local skills improvement plans are not mired in the murk that we have seen from the Government recently.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
As we know, eight trailblazer ERBs were set up in July this year, with £4 million. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to find out how beneficial they have been before we decide to roll them out and have chambers of commerce leading on them?
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is feature of the Government’s approach, particularly to skills, that they set up pilots and then reach a conclusion before it is completed, as we saw on T-levels. We are debating the creation of something when the pilot is still at a very early stage. It was commented on, on social media and elsewhere, that the Minister said on Tuesday that it does not have to be a chamber of commerce; it could be any kind of organisation. When I asked him how many other organisations there are, he said, “Well, none.” It is better if we are straight and honest about what we are talking about. The anticipation is that chambers of commerce will do it in the vast majority of cases. Other organisations may come forward, and we look forward to seeing that emerge, but clearly the legislation was written with chambers of commerce in mind, and they are taking on the trailblazer role. My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Why not find out how these things are working before we rush ahead and do them?
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
To amplify that point, I am sure that Members on both sides agree that we need greater transparency. All we are asking for is openness in the process, so that people cannot seek to influence decisions. To take one simple example, not very far from me there was a local enterprise partnership, the chair of which happened to be a huge landowner who was seeking to steer future business decisions towards that parcel of land. That is why this is really important. Of course, it could come from any direction; I just happen to use that example. Whether it is the cronyism that my hon. Friend referenced earlier, or the chair of the Office for Students, these things have to be out in the open and as transparent as possible.
Mr Perkins
Absolutely. That is particularly important because organisations such as local enterprise partnerships, the Office for Students and others operate on a statutory level, with expectations around that. From a governance perspective, they are kind of arms of Government. The chambers of commerce are independent of Government. The Government are outsourcing responsibility for a function that they have created. It will be delivered as a function of Government, but they are expecting a private organisation to deliver it. It is therefore important that that private organisation operates in a way that a statutory organisation would.
Rachel Hopkins
My hon. Friend is making a very interesting point about transparency and the outsourcing of a Government function to a private entity. Does he agree that, given that a freedom of information request cannot be placed on a private entity, this is another reason why it is vital that these conflicts—or potential conflicts—are raised early doors and up front for transparency?
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend makes another incredibly important point. It is something that people should naturally accept. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response. That was another important intervention from my hon. Friend, and I appreciate the interventions both she and my other colleagues have made—if any Conservative MPs want to involve themselves in the debate, they would be very welcome to do so. It is important that everyone gets to know what is being said, who is saying it and on what basis it was said. That is the reason for the amendment. We do not need to continue describing it, but I am very interested to hear what others have to say on it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Efford, and I look forward to making even more rapid progress today, as we continue with clause 2 of our 39-clause Bill. I rise to speak to amendment 43, tabled by the hon. Members for Chesterfield and for Warwick and Leamington, regarding specifying certain conditions for the designation of employer representative bodies. It is obviously right that a designation may be subject to terms and condition, such as the terms and conditions that the hon. Member for Chesterfield has set out. However, the precise terms and conditions need to be flexible, and may change over time in the light of wider circumstances. They also need to be tailored to the specific employer representative body in question. That is why the specifics should be set out by the Secretary of State in a notice of the designation, which can be modified from time to time, rather than in the Bill.
Mr Perkins
I thank the Minister for that very brief response—the Opposition have heard it. It is important that there is clarity about where people are able to find these conditions. We are once again being asked, “Vote for it now, and we will let you know what it means tomorrow.” It sounds almost like the coalition agreement. I believe that a commitment at this stage to having those aspects in the Bill would have been useful. I do not believe the Minister touched upon decarbonisation at all in his response, which seemed quite an omission, but we are of the view that a decarbonisation strategy should play a central role in these LSIPs. For that reason, we will seek to test the mood of the Committee by pressing the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3— Report on the performance of employer representative bodies—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, and every twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the performance of employer representative bodies and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Each report must contain a statement setting out—
(a) the role of employer representative bodies,
(b) the accountability of employer representative bodies,
(c) the cost of employer representative bodies,
(d) the number of employer representative bodies in England and the areas covered,
(e) the number of employer representative bodies that have been removed and the reason why.
(3) Each report must contain an independent assessment of the impact of each employer representative body on—
(a) the development of local skills improvement plans, and
(b) local rates of participation in further education.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on employer representative bodies to allow for scrutiny of their role and performance.
Alex Burghart
Clause 2 is important for placing employers at the centre of the local skills system, shaping post-16 technical education and training so that it is more responsive to local labour market skills needs. It gives the Secretary of State the power to designate genuine employer representative bodies to lead the development of local skills improvement plans, working closely with employers, providers and local stakeholders. Employer representative bodies will be well placed to give a credible articulation of local skills need and drive greater employer involvement in local skills systems.
The Secretary of State will designate employer representative bodies based on criteria. They must be satisfied that a body is capable of performing the duties of developing and keeping under review a local skills improvement plan in an effective and impartial manner, and that it is reasonably representative of employers in the area. The body must also consent in writing to being designated. Designated bodies should draw on the views of a wide range of employers of all sizes, as well as other relevant employer representative and sector bodies, to inform the development of those plans. This should ensure it is as easy as possible for employers, especially small employers, to engage and have their voice heard. The success of the plans will depend on sustained and effective engagement between employers, convened and represented through the designated bodies, and providers.
Clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to provide written notice of the designation detailing the designated body, specified area, effective date, and any terms and conditions the employer representative body will be subject to. Introducing this power to designate is crucial to ensuring there is an effective employer-led body in place that is capable of leading the development of a robust local skills improvement plan for an area, working closely and in co-operation with relevant providers and stakeholders.
New clause 3, tabled by the hon. Members for Chesterfield and for Warwick and Leamington, is concerned with the performance management of employer representative bodies. It proposes a requirement for the Secretary of State to periodically
“publish a report on the performance of employer representative bodies”.
We agree that employer representative bodies need to be accountable for their leadership of local skills improvement plans, and the Bill already provides a framework for this. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that an eligible body is capable of developing a local skills improvement plan in an impartial manner before they are designated. The Secretary of State can then specify terms and conditions to which a designation is subject and modify them as necessary. In its role, the designated employer representative body will be accountable to the Secretary of State, and the Department for Education will monitor and review its performance.
If a designated employer representative body does not have regard to relevant statutory guidance—as we were discussing last time—or comply with any terms or conditions of its designation, or if it ceases to meet the criteria for which it was originally designated, the Secretary of State may well decide not to approve and publish the local skills improvement plan, and has the power to remove its designation. If that power is exercised, the Secretary of State must publish a notice, which must include the reasons for the removal. The Secretary of State is already accountable to Parliament, and Members can of course raise questions on this issue if they wish.
Mr Perkins
With regard to clause 2, we remain of the view that without amendment 37, which the Committee decided to vote against on Tuesday, the Government will be introducing a good idea badly. As such, local skills improvement plans will not enjoy the holistic representation or offer the breadth of experience they could have done, which is hugely regrettable. I do not propose to repeat all of the arguments we made last Tuesday, or even any of them, but it remains our view that not incorporating amendment 37 in the Bill will fundamentally undermine local skills improvement plans.
New clause 3, which we have proposed,
“requires the Secretary of State to publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on employer representative bodies to allow for scrutiny of their role and performance.”
We think it is essential that there is proper scrutiny and oversight of employer representative bodies, that they enjoy the confidence of elected representatives at local and national level, and that local communities, local businesses and, crucially, learners—who are so absent from the Bill—can see how an employer representative body has performed and assess the quality of the plans they have produced. Given that employer representative bodies will control much of the adult education and skills budget and their direction through the formation of these local skills improvement plans, due diligence and accountability will be vital. All we ask for is an annual report to Parliament that will enable Members to analyse the performance of employer representative bodies and ensure they are doing the role they are intended to.
Alex Burghart
I want to clarify a point regarding something the hon. Gentleman just said. It is important for us all to realise and recognise that employer representative bodies will not be commissioners. They do not control budgets; they set out plans that local providers of education then have to respond to. He may not have meant that, but I just wish to clarify that point.
Mr Perkins
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. I did understand that. When I used the phrase “control much of the adult education and skills budget”, I meant that the direction in which that budget ends up being spent will be informed—in fact, legally, will have to be informed—by those local skills improvement plans. While they might not be writing out the cheques, they will very much be responsible for the pathway that that funding takes. I thank the Minister for his clarification, but I do not think it alters the point that I was making.
Matt Western
Clearly, the new clause is quite simply about, as my hon. Friend is saying, ensuring that there is scrutiny of the actions and the role of these bodies and that they are actually serving in the way that they are intended. The change being introduced is quite significant; while we see some of it as being positive—although perhaps not very well formed, as we have articulated previously—that is why it is important that there should be scrutiny. The Government should take interest in that. This is just another example of there not being enough scrutiny in our governance.
Mr Perkins
Absolutely, and the Government have been accused of treating Parliament with contempt. What we ask for here is an important change that would lead to an annual report to Parliament and ensure that the Secretary of State would come to Parliament and answer to that once-a-year report.
The Minister spoke about the accountability of ERBs to the Secretary of State, but said nothing about the accountability of ERBs to Parliament, or of the Secretary of State to Parliament. It is not good enough to simply say “Well, there will be a responsibility to the Secretary of State, and if you want to ask him a question, you can.”
It is not asking too much to say “Once a year, provide a report. Members of Parliament expect a statement to be produced alongside that report, and any MPs with particular concerns have a tiny section of their parliamentary year to ask questions about employer representative bodies, and at least have those on the public record.” That was the purpose of our new clause 3. I think that it is a very sensible one, and that it would be useful if the Government ensured that they were open to that scrutiny.
Matt Western
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the chair again, Mr Efford. I will just add a simple point. I appreciate that it is always difficult in these situations for a Minister, but I would urge him—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield would agree—to reflect on this very constructive new clause. While it may not be successful today, perhaps in days to come, the Government will reflect on that and look to introduce it at a later stage. I think that would be a very positive thing for the Government to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Removal of designations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 3 is an important accountability mechanism, which gives the Secretary of State the ability to remove an employer representative body’s designation in certain conditions. Hopefully, that will not be required, but we need to be clear on when such circumstances may arise, and ensure there is a process—
Mr Perkins
On a point of order, Mr Efford. I do not think we have dealt with new clause 3. Did we?
The Chair
The new clauses are dealt with at the end of the proceeding. So we will deal with all of the new clauses and any votes then. You will move new clause 3 formally at that stage and we will vote on it.
Alex Burghart
As I was saying, we need to be clear when such circumstances may arise and ensure that there is a process for taking appropriate action, which will be through a published notice.
The ability to remove a designation is needed for a range of important reasons, for example in the event that an employer representative body does not comply with the term or condition of their designation, or does not have regard to relevant guidance on carrying out their role. This clause helps to ensure that the employer representative body designated for an area remains representative, and capable of delivering and keeping under review a local skills improvement plan in an effective and impartial manner.
Mr Perkins
This clause is obviously necessary, given the votes that have taken place already. It outlines the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can remove the designation of an employer representative body.
It would be useful to get clarification from the Minister about the reasons why the Secretary of State would look to replace an employer representative body, such as the performance of that body; any representations made by anyone within the body, be it further education colleges or other institutions; representations by other employer representative bodies that perhaps did not consider that the body was being consistent or was properly declaring interest; or any other criteria that might require an employer representative body to be replaced.
The other real concern is that the Secretary of State has awarded himself huge powers. He will be the person who will decide who to appoint; he will be the person who approves the local plan; therefore, he becomes the person who decides whether it is right policy for Bishop Auckland, or for Bishop Stortford, or for anywhere in the country—the Secretary of State is the man who decides whether or not a plan is the right one. If he then decides, “Oh, well, I don’t really like this plan”, or, “I don’t like the way the employer representative body is carrying out its business”, he can choose to get rid of the employer representative body as well.
The Secretary of State is taking a lot of powers under the guise of devolution to set policy in individual local areas. Although we understand the purpose of the clause and do not intend to vote against it, it would be useful to hear from the Minister a little more about the criteria that will be used. It is also important for these employer representative bodies to have clarity and that it is not just a case of, “Look, if you annoy the Secretary of State, he might get rid of you”, and that instead we have a proper process and proper criteria.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
We have to legislate for the worst case scenarios as well as for the best case scenarios. Given that there is little democratic oversight, particularly outside areas with metro Mayors, in this whole process, does my hon. Friend think that we perhaps need parliamentary scrutiny of any decision that the Secretary of State makes in respect of who the representative bodies are and are not at any one particular time?
Mr Perkins
That is an important point. Obviously part of my hon. Friend’s constituency comes within the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. He and his colleagues in the Greater Manchester area have a very strong sense of the priorities for their local area. They might have worked very closely with an employer representative body and come up with a plan that they liked. However, the Secretary of State might not like that plan and might decide, “Well, I’m overruling that”’; the Secretary of State is sat there in Stratford-on-Avon, but he thinks he knows better than my hon. Friend what Greater Manchester needs. Some kind of process that just explains on what basis the Secretary of State will make these decisions would be very valuable.
This reminds me of what was happening around the time of the second coronavirus lockdown, when we know that the Government and the Secretary of State were very angry with Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, for not complying with their strict demands and edicts. If it was an employer representative body that was angering the Secretary of State, goodness knows whether or not he would cite this clause and say, “Well, we’ll have to get rid of you, because you haven’t done what we said”.
When the Secretary of State awards himself such powers—and we understand that there is a need to put in place a clause to replace ERBs, on occasion—some kind of parliamentary scrutiny is needed of those concerns and the desire to remove the designation.
It would be useful to hear more from the Minister about how that process will take place. Who will be able to make representations around the replacement of an ERB? What weight will be given to the representations of alternative employer representative bodies, FE colleges and independent training providers? The worry is that the plans may mean that independent providers that play an important role in individual sectors are overlooked and are not seen within the employer representative bodies or the local skills improvements plans. Who will be able to make representations on all that, and what level of scrutiny will there be? Those are important questions, and we look forward to the Minister assuring us on those matters.
Alex Burghart
I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Chesterfield, and I refer him to clause 3. The Secretary of State will set out terms and conditions for each employer representative body, and those terms and conditions will be public. Statutory guidance to govern how employer representative bodies behave will also be public. In the event that a Secretary of State wishes to remove the designation of an ERB, he or she will have to do so in writing. Under the terms of clause 3(3)(a), he or she will have to
“include reasons for the removal of the designation”.
Obviously, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. I imagine that there would be further urgent questions on the matter, and that Select Committees might want to look into it. I believe that our mechanisms for parliamentary accountability are sound and good—particularly when they are overseen by noble Chairs such as yourself, Mr Efford. With that, I resume my seat.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Interpretation
Amendments made: 11, in clause 4, page 5, line 35, after “institution” insert “in England”.
Amendments 11, 12, 13 and 14 ensure that a relevant provider, to whom the duties in clause 1(4) apply, must be in England. This amendment ensures that, for an institution within the further education sector to be a relevant provider, it must be in England.
12, in clause 4, page 5, line 38, leave out “a” and insert “an English”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 11. This amendment ensures that a higher education provider will be a relevant provider only if it is an English higher education provider.
13, in clause 4, page 5, line 40, after “provider” insert
“whose activities, so far as they relate to the provision of post-16 technical education or training, are carried on, or partly carried on, in England”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 11. This amendment ensures that an independent training provider is a relevant provider only if the provider’s activities that relate to providing post-16 technical education or training are carried on, or partly carried on, in England.
14, in clause 4, page 5, line 41, at end insert “in England”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 11. This amendment ensures that the only schools that can be relevant providers by virtue of regulations under clause 4 are schools in England.
15, in clause 4, page 6, line 9, leave out “in respect of which amounts are”
and insert
“funded, wholly or partly, by amounts”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 16 and 17, ensure that education or training is treated as English-funded where amounts are paid directly to providers of the education or training in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State (as, for example, where payments are made by the Student Loans Company).
16, in clause 4, page 6, line 10, leave out “by the Secretary of State”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
17, in clause 4, page 6, line 11, after “made” insert
“by the Secretary of State”.—(Alex Burghart.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 4 is important in providing clarity as to the providers who will be subject to the duties relating to local skills improvement plans and the employer representative bodies eligible to be designated to lead them. It also gives the Secretary of State the ability, through regulations, to include additional providers.
The clause enables the Secretary of State to specify further types of providers that deliver English-funded post-16 technical education and training in England to be encompassed in the future. However, those regulations would be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution in either House of Parliament. I hope members of the Committee agree that this is an important aspect of the LSIP provisions.
Mr Perkins
We are moving at such breakneck speed, Mr Efford, it is hard to keep track.
The clause is an interpretation clause, clarifying what is meant by the various terms of eligible body, employer, training provider and so on. We have no reason to vote against it. Amendments 11 to 17 have just been made. It would be useful if the Minister could inform the Committee what the consequence of the proposals on local skills improvement plans will be for the Barnett consequentials. How may they be considered by the Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly and Northern Irish Assembly?
Alex Burghart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the clause. My understanding is that there are no Barnett consequentials as a result of this measure. If that turns out to be incorrect, I will let him know at the first available opportunity.
Mr Perkins
Given the amount of money that is being spent on local skills improvement plans and the initial budgets towards the trailblazer, I am slightly surprised to learn that there is no equivalent expectation for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I will take the answer that the Minister has given me as the one that will stand for now, and forever into the future, unless I hear otherwise.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Institutions in England within the further education sector: local needs
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
There is strong agreement on the importance of the provision of high-quality technical education and training that is responsive to local needs. For many colleges, the delivery of technical education is a key part of a wider curriculum that responds to different local needs.
The wider curriculum can include, for example, academic provision for students hoping to move on to university, English or maths provision for adults, or high-needs provision for learners with an education, health and care plan. Colleges also need to deliver other functions that support education delivery, such as careers education and advice, support for students with special educational needs and pastoral support.
We will only achieve our goal of provision that is responsive to local needs where there is effective strategic curriculum planning within every college. Such curriculum planning needs to reflect both the priorities set out in the local skills improvement plan, and the needs of different groups of learners.
The clause therefore places a duty on governing bodies of institutions within the further education sector to periodically review their provision against local needs and to consider changes that might improve the way those needs are met. The duty applies to further education and sixth-form colleges, and to institutions designated under section 28 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. That reflects the importance of those institutions in many local communities and the breadth of their curriculum offer.
In carrying out the review, the governing body must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. A draft of the statutory guidance has been published by the Department. The guidance sets out the principles that should be followed when carrying out reviews and how reviews should be conducted, including working with different stakeholders and other governing bodies.
While the new duty builds on the existing good practice within the sector, there are also cases where improvement is required. That might include, for example, cases where intense local rivalries have led institutions to prioritise the needs of one group of learners over another, even if that is at the expense of learners in the local area as a whole. By putting in place a legal duty requiring reviews to be published, we are strengthening transparency and accountability around decisions on provision that are vital for local communities. When carrying out reviews, colleges will need to be mindful of their other relevant statutory obligations, including those in relation to learners with special educational needs and disabilities.
The clause strengthens the legal framework in which colleges, working both individually and in collaboration with each other, regularly review their provision to identify how it can be improved. That will help to deliver more responsive further education provision and will benefit local communities in all parts of England.
Mr Perkins
Clause 5 sets out the duty for institutions such as colleges to review provision in relation to local needs. The review must be published on the institution’s website and must be conducted in line with the Secretary of State’s guidance. The Opposition do not propose to divide the Committee on the clause. I am grateful to hear from the Minister specific mention of special needs. He will be aware that we are very concerned that that area should be reflected in local skills improvement plans, so I appreciate his reference to it. It is important to ensure that the review takes into account local circumstances and has the broadest possible base. We support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Functions of the Institute: oversight etc
Mr Perkins
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 6, page 7, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) The Institute shall perform a review of the operation of the apprenticeship levy, paying particular regard to ensuring that sufficient apprenticeships at level 3 and below are available.”.
This amendment would require the Institute to perform a review of the operation of the apprenticeship levy, and would require the Institute to pay particular regard to ensuring that sufficient apprenticeships at level 3 and below are available.
The debate on this amendment is the only opportunity that the Committee will get to talk about apprenticeships in the skills Bill, and that is pretty remarkable. The amendment would require the institute to perform a review of the operation of the apprenticeship levy and to pay particular regard to ensuring that sufficient apprenticeships at level 3 and below are available. Apprenticeships are the gold standard in vocational opportunity. Every single one of us is aware of apprenticeship providers and employers that have excellent apprenticeship programmes in our constituencies, and we have met people whose lives have been changed by their apprenticeships. However, we also know that for many of our constituents—particularly our younger constituents—apprenticeships remain elusive. There are far fewer apprenticeship opportunities than there should be.
A Labour Government will be committed to increasing the number of apprenticeship opportunities and addressing the calamitous collapse in new apprenticeship starts at levels 2 and 3. We will promote apprenticeships as the No. 1 vocational opportunity for young people who are not attending university, and we will seek funding for them ahead of schemes such as kickstart, which is more costly and less well defined, demands less commitment from employers and makes less impact on learners. It is a vivid demonstration of the Government’s complete failure to address key issues that while they preside over their failure on apprenticeships, they introduce a skills Bill that almost entirely fails to touch on the reform needed to salvage these crucial career opportunities.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important point, because it is, quite frankly, flabbergasting that in a skills Bill there is very little mention—in fact, almost none—of apprenticeships. For so many, apprenticeships could be the route to developing the skills for the jobs of the future. When I talk to local employers, they now appear to be using the apprenticeship levy funding to upskill their own workforces, rather than using the money to skill up the next generation.
Mr Perkins
Absolutely, and that speaks to the heart of the amendment. The apprenticeship levy has, remarkably, led to a steep decline in those aged under 25 taking on entry-level apprenticeships. In fact, it must be the first policy—well, that is probably not true, but certainly it is one policy—that set out with a particular objective, only to achieve the polar opposite. We have an apprenticeship policy that has drastically reduced the number of apprenticeship opportunities, and it is worth reflecting for a moment on the scale of that failure.
Kim Johnson
My hon. Friend makes some important points about apprenticeships and the fact that the number of them has reduced. Does he agree that some of that is down to the lack of information and career guidance available in schools for many of our young people?
Mr Perkins
I absolutely agree. There are a huge number of causes, but my hon. Friend is right that one is the abandonment of careers guidance that happened in 2010, when this Government came to power and scrapped Connexions—got rid of many of those—and the statutory responsibility for careers guidance.
To give a scintilla of credit to the Government, they have at least realised to an extent that the decision made back in 2010 was catastrophic and made an attempt to rebuild some kind of careers service. We have many criticisms of their approach, but at least there is a recognition that simply getting rid of face-to-face careers guidance and going towards a purely online service was disastrous. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside is absolutely right about the number of people not doing apprenticeships. We will have an opportunity later in proceedings to discuss careers guidance in more detail—it is a priority for the Labour party.
Without in any way undermining what my hon. Friend said, it is also important to make the point that there is a real shortage of opportunities out there; it is not purely that people do not want apprenticeships. I went to a training academy for construction on the south coast and I was told, interestingly, that there were about 100 applicants for every one of its apprenticeship opportunities. In an area with relatively low levels of unemployment, kids are still fighting to get hold of those opportunities. They recognise the value of apprenticeships. The importance of promoting apprenticeships is a strong point to make, but there is also a huge amount more to be done on supply.
To return to what I was saying a moment ago, it is important to understand the scale of the collapse in the number of apprenticeships. The number of apprenticeships going to 19 to 24-year-olds declined from 142,200 in 2016-17 right down to 95,500 in 2019-20, so there was a fall of almost 33% over that period. The levy was supposed to boost employer investment in training—my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish was in this place when the apprenticeship levy was announced, and he will remember that we were all told it would boost the amount that employers would invest in training—but that has declined, with £2.3 billion less spent in 2019 than in 2017.
The current funding arrangement particularly fails small businesses, which are a real priority for the Labour party. Especially in communities such as Chesterfield, small businesses are the prevalent providers of employment, and the fact that they have been shut out of the apprenticeship regime so dramatically with the introduction of the levy has had a massive impact. In 2016, 11% of businesses with less than 50 employees had apprentices in their organisation. I think 11% was probably not enough, but it was something. By 2019, there had been a 20% reduction in the number of small businesses with apprenticeships.
It is no wonder that the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development described the apprenticeship levy as having “failed on every measure”. It says that the levy will continue to
“undermine investment in skills and economic recovery without significant reform”.
Where is the opportunity to provide significant reform to apprenticeships and the apprenticeship levy, if not through a skills Bill? Yet the Government have chosen to leave apprenticeships out of it. Where is the reform? What are the Government doing about this failure, and do they even acknowledge that it exists? The starting point for addressing a problem is to accept that there is one. We have been forced to shoehorn an amendment into this skills Bill in order to even talk about apprenticeships.
Let us take construction as an example. The Construction Industry Training Board estimates that we need 217,000 new entrants to construction by 2025 to prevent growth from being slowed. The Government have for 11 years presided over a low-growth, high-taxation economy. Without an increase in the construction workforce, that growth will continue to be stilted.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that up to 2019, this country had the highest level of employment in history. He is being very selective with the information he is providing.
Mr Perkins
The hon. Member talks about high levels of employment, but I have people in my constituency who are doing three jobs at once and still cannot pay their bills. The truth is that under this Government, we have a low-wage, low-growth economy. People are paying the highest level of taxes since the 1950s. He might not think it makes much sense, but to people in my constituency it absolutely does.
The Chair
Order. The interventions are straying a little bit away from the amendment. I would be grateful if we could return to the subject of the amendment, exciting though that exchange was.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Compare high unemployment with the youth unemployment in core cities. The opportunities and pathways available to those young people are almost non-existent. Where local authorities, such as Birmingham, have worked tremendously hard to bring down youth unemployment, it has been reversed as a direct result of the actions taken by Government. In Birmingham, for example—
The Chair
Order. Interventions should be a lot shorter than that. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we must keep to the point. I will allow him one sentence to finish his intervention, then we will go back to Toby Perkins.
Mr Perkins
Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for that point. It is precisely the motivation behind the amendment, which we will get the opportunity to vote on. I think his point is incredibly important. Many young people in cities such as Birmingham look at the future and find that jobs are very thin on the ground. Even thinner on the ground are careers, rather than jobs. I am talking about opportunities to develop skills and get involved in a long-term career, as opposed to a casual job where they go to work, come home and are still living in poverty. That is why skills are so important, and why this investment is so important.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous with his time. To go back to a point that has been made in previous interventions, does he recognise that although getting younger people into employment will always be an issue, the fact that this country’s rates are so low compared with those of many of our neighbours on the continent, such as Spain and Italy, represents a roaring success story?
The Chair
Order. I will not allow you to answer that, Mr Perkins, because it takes us wide of the issue, which is the review of the levy and ensuring that there are sufficient apprenticeships. Can we get back to the amendment?
Mr Perkins
I appreciate your iron grip on the debate, Mr Efford. I will confine my contribution to the amendment, as I was doing before I was so rudely interrupted. There is a link between youth unemployment and apprenticeships, and it is precisely that link that the amendment, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, seeks to address. The current funding arrangements are failing small organisations. It is important that the Government acknowledge that and take steps to recognise that problems exist. We are not seeing anything that suggests that they realise that there is a problem with the apprenticeship levy.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not see some irony in his speech? The reason why the Bill introduces LSIPs, and so on, is that we want employers to take control and understand more about apprenticeships, because there are lots of jobs and apprenticeships available, unlike when Labour was last in Government and we had 25% youth unemployment.
Mr Perkins
I do not see a lot of irony in my speech, but I saw quite a bit in the hon. Lady’s intervention. The truth is that we have had 11 years of a Government that told us that every single reform that they took was about putting employers in charge, and yet, at the same time, apprenticeships have fallen. I will not repeat the figures.
Mr Perkins
Let me destroy the intervention that we have just had before I take another. If we accept that there is real value in apprenticeships, surely—given the fall in the number of apprenticeships, and the 11 years of reforms intended to put employers in the driving seat—anyone would think that continuing to do something that keeps failing is the definition of insanity. That is why we have tabled amendments to address that.
Lia Nici
I extend an open welcome to the hon. Gentleman to join a meeting of the apprenticeship diversity champions network, where we have more than 100 employers—more are joining—who are doing fantastic things with apprenticeships. I assure him that he will be able to hear lots of positive stories from them.
Mr Perkins
I would be delighted to attend that, and I look forward to receiving the invitation. I have already seen many examples of great apprenticeship programmes. I do not for a second decry those that exist, and I always enjoy seeing employers, in my constituency and elsewhere, who offer good apprenticeship programmes. It is because I recognise their value that I am so angry that apprenticeship starts have fallen from 494,000 in 2016 to 322,000.
One of the things that really concern me about the Government is that they operate by anecdote. They see something great, and it convinces them that everything is all right with the world. Actually, although there are superb apprenticeship programmes around and a lot of employers are committed to them, overall the numbers are going down. The number of them at levels 2 and 3 is going down. The number of small businesses offering apprenticeships is going down. The availability of apprenticeships in crucial sectors such as construction is going down, and so is the availability of people to get on to them, particularly in smaller towns that do not have major employers. That is what we are trying to address with amendment 32.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is making, as ever, some very important and powerful points. The wording of the amendment is very simple and, I would have thought, pretty honest and straightforward. It is about better governance and better operation of any attempt to improve skills delivery in education and across our economy. The amendment simply says:
“The Institute shall perform a review of the operation of the apprenticeship levy”.
I have spoken to many businesses in my constituency and elsewhere, and they are really concerned. They see the apprenticeship levy as having simply become a tax on business, with £250 million returned to the Treasury in 2020-21 and £330 million in 2019-20. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns?
Mr Perkins
I absolutely do, which is probably why I teamed up with my hon. Friend to table the amendment. He is absolutely right. We do not oppose the apprenticeship levy, but it is really important that we explore the point he has made. The apprenticeship levy is a significant tax and it falls on 2% of all businesses, as the former Chancellor George Osborne told us when he announced it. At the same time, he completely withdrew the Government’s own funding for apprenticeships and replaced it with this funding.
George Osborne did something unique: he created a tax that businesses get to decide how to spend. When we send a cheque or BACS payment for road tax, as all drivers do, we do not do so with an accompanying list of the potholes that we want to be repaired. When we pay our overall road tax, we get to drive and the Government and councils decide which potholes will be fixed and which road improvement programmes will be carried out. What happened here, however, is that the Government isolated a tiny fraction of all employers and said, “You’re paying this tax. This is the only contribution to apprenticeships that is going to be made and you get to decide what it is spent on.” All the other 98% of businesses, which are not levy payers, therefore have no funding for apprenticeships.
It is hardly surprising that we have seen a dramatic collapse in the number of small businesses that are able to offer apprenticeships, because they have been excluded from the system. They heard a very powerful message back in 2015: apprenticeships are something that big businesses do, and they are not for small businesses any more. All kinds of measures were put in place, in terms of the bureaucracy around apprenticeships, and that really reduced the opportunities available. Many small businesses that had up until then been successfully involved in apprenticeships got the message and got out of that environment.
Matt Western
That is the point. I am sure it was not by design that the money got lost in the Treasury, but it is a real tragedy that the money intended for delivering apprenticeships to small businesses has been lost. Therefore, the really important parts of our economy—the small businesses that might be working in our supply chains, our service sectors or whatever—are not getting the money they need in order to train the next generation.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Regardless of whether it was by design or not, it was absolutely foreseeable that that was what would happen, and many such criticisms were made at the time. The reality is that the Government set up the apprenticeship regime on the basis of successful programmes at organisations such as BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce. They thought, “That is what we want for everyone,” so they created an apprenticeship regime that was designed around major businesses, without recognising that those major businesses are simply not available in many of our constituencies. If young people in my constituency wanted to do an apprenticeship, they were doing it at their local hairdressers, construction firms or other small businesses. A successful regime would support small businesses in accessing apprenticeships in the same way as large businesses. The Government need to recognise that the scheme’s bureaucracy is simply pushing businesses away and preventing them from taking part unless they have large training, HR and personnel departments.
I have a level 3 apprentice in my office. MPs’ offices are effectively small businesses, with very small numbers of people working in them, and that apprenticeship involves significant bureaucratic requirements. A very helpful independent training provider is supporting me on that apprenticeship programme and has worked through the paperwork with me, but high-quality apprenticeships should not have to be linked to bureaucracy and funding arrangements that drive small businesses away.
There is one legitimate question that has not yet been asked by the Government, but I will save them from having to do so by asking it myself. They talk about reform, but what should that reform look like? We want an apprenticeship regime that supports access for small businesses, ensures quality, and recognises that the majority of the apprenticeship levy should be spent on level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships. There is absolutely a role for degree apprenticeships—for people who aspire to get level 6 qualifications—but that should be about a journey, not organisations doing what they are currently doing in many cases, which is saying, “We’ve got this levy. What are we going to spend it on? Well, we’ll let the finance director do his MBA—he’s always fancied that.” That is what apprenticeship funding is currently being used for in so many cases. I am never going to advocate against continuous professional development—of course it is important—but it is also really important to recognise that that is what is happening, and that it needs to be addressed.
The amount of money going back to the Treasury is actually worse than the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington. During the back end of this year, we got an answer to a parliamentary question showing that last year a total of £2 billion of apprenticeship levy funding had been sent back to the Treasury unspent. A huge amount of this funding is not being spent, which to me is the very definition of a failing system.
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. Regarding that £2 billion figure he has just cited and his earlier point about the construction industry, surely the amendment’s proposed review could give direction for the delivery of courses. For example, the construction sector needs to undertake recladding exercises up and down the country, and ensure that they are delivered on time.
Mr Perkins
Absolutely: construction is a great example. As I have said, there are 217,000 too few construction workers. Anyone who has tried to get serious construction work done at their house—an extension or similar—will know how tough it is to find a builder who has time to do it. Our country is losing huge amounts of growth and we are also facing a housing and homelessness crisis, because we simply do not have enough workers in the construction industry. It is incredibly important that these issues are addressed.
We would have liked to propose more specific reforms to the apprenticeship levy. More specific amendments would have sought to rectify years of neglect by this Government, particularly of SMEs and sectors that are crying out for a pipeline of apprenticeships. However, we were told that such reforms were outside the scope of the Bill. Nevertheless, we are proposing that the IATE introduces a review of the current operation of the levy, particularly in relation to ensuring that sufficient opportunities are available at level 3 and below. That is essential to ensuring that opportunities exist for young people who are seeking to step on to the first rung on the ladder, as well as adults who are seeking to retrain, particularly in sectors such as care and others that I have referred to. It is vital that levy funds are used to train up the next generation.
Within the scope of what already exists, the Government are attempting to do things that I think are positive, supporting businesses that pay the levy to allow their supply chain to use those funds, thereby benefiting more small businesses. However, this is still about trying to correct a wrong that was there in the first place: a better apprenticeship reform would be about making sure that more of that funding actually goes to small businesses and is used in every single community in the land. It would be about more people doing level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships, more opportunities for 16 to 19-year-olds, and the careers regime that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington referred to, which would give young people opportunities early in their school career to follow the apprenticeship path. It would allow young people to go into a level 2 apprenticeship at the age of 16 and to work their way through to a degree at 25 or 26, after having been paid all the way there. That is the kind of future that a Labour Government would get us to.
Andrew Gwynne
It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I rise to support the Opposition amendment—a modest amendment that simply asks for a review of the apprenticeship levy, paying particular regard to ensuring that sufficient apprenticeships at level 3 and below are available. This is really important. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has set out in great detail why we believe the apprenticeship levy is not working in the way in which the Government promised. The intention of the apprenticeship levy is a good one, but the practice of it in our constituencies is not working. We can see that in all the data and all the facts that my hon. Friend has laid out. The professional bodies responsible for training also support that view.
If the Minister has not already read the House of Lords Youth Unemployment Committee report, I encourage him to do so because it is very clear about the failings of the levy and the negative impact it has had on apprenticeship opportunities for younger people. It acknowledges that there has been an increase in higher-level apprenticeships, which is good, but drilling down into the data we see what the Opposition have already outlined—employers ensuring that their existing workforce are trained up to higher levels. That is good, and continuous improvement in the workplace is something we should support, but I do not believe the apprenticeship levy should pay for something that has always been paid for by employers. It goes against the ethos of the apprenticeship levy. Why do I speak so passionately about apprenticeships? I want to take the Committee back to 1990 when we had a Tory Government. We were in the 11th year of Baroness Thatcher’s premiership.
Andrew Gwynne
I know how to warm up a Committee. It was also the year that 16-year-old Andrew Gwynne left Egerton Park High School in Denton with a clutch of good GCSEs, but I did not know what I wanted to do. All I knew was that I did not want to go to college, so I took the rather unusual decision, given how it was painted at the time, of applying to go on youth training, the successor to the old YTS—the youth training scheme. I was very fortunate in the opportunity that youth training gave me. As I say, I had a clutch of good GCSEs and could have gone on to study A-levels, but I did not want to do that. I wanted to go down the vocational route.
I had to have a job interview at ICL—International Computers Ltd, now part of Fujitsu—in West Gorton in Manchester. I got my new suit from Burton and got on the 210 bus, nervous as anything. I had my job interview and got the two-year placement. When I think of the real responsibilities that they gave that 16 to 18-year-old, I look back in horror because I am not sure that I would have given 16 to 18-year-old Andrew Gwynne those opportunities—[Interruption.] I can see you staring at me from the Chair, Mr Efford—I do not think you would have given 16 to 18-year-old Andrew Gwynne those responsibilities either.
Alex Burghart
I could listen to that all day. What a heart-warming story of great education and training achievement under a Conservative Government. Although I do not agree with all the detail given by Opposition Members, I echo their sentiment. We all care deeply about apprenticeships, and the good news is that we will get more of them, because the Chancellor committed to spending a great deal more money on apprenticeships, taking their budget to £2.7 billion a year by the end of the spending review period.
I am pleased that the amendment was tabled because it gives us an opportunity to go over some of this ground and talk about the great work that we have been doing on apprenticeships. Alas, we lack the time to go into all the detail raised by the Opposition, but I remind them that although there have been changes in the numbers of people doing apprenticeships, that has happened for a reason. It has happened because when the coalition came to power, there was a need to review the quality of apprenticeships in our country. The Richard review—a famous and widely respected review—found that apprenticeships were not giving employers the skills that they needed, and that one fifth of apprentices reported receiving no training and one third of apprentices did not know that they were on an apprenticeship. That is why we decided to go for quality, and that quality is now paying off.
I was lucky enough to be at the national apprenticeships awards last night—I was sorry not to see Opposition Members there—and it was a fantastic evening. We saw many people—some young; some not so young—who were doing apprenticeships at all levels, and fantastic employers, from big companies and small schools to the Royal Navy, which is a fantastic provider of apprenticeships at all levels. It was a real celebration of the new landscape of high-quality apprenticeships to provide young people, and not so young people, with the skills that employers need.
I recognise the points made by the Opposition about level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships, of which I also want to see more. However, in 2020 and 2021, those levels made up 69% of apprenticeship starts. The majority of employer-designed standards are still at levels 2 and 3—345 out of 630.
It has been this Government, during the pandemic, who have paid employers and providers £1,000 when they take on apprenticeships for young people aged 16 to 18. More than 80% of 16 to 18-year-olds were participating in education or an apprenticeship at the end of 2020, the highest number on record.
More than one third of apprenticeship employers are still SMEs. We will see that number increase as the excellent levy transfer scheme continues to go great guns. Already millions of pounds are being transferred by large employers to smaller employers in their supply chains and beyond. Some of the case studies I have seen so far are wonderful. I do not know whether they are in the public domain, so I cannot talk about them, but we are seeing providers pass their money on in really creative and interesting ways.
We must almost remember that 95% of the costs of training and assessment for smaller employers are still covered. The figure is 100% for the smallest employers who are taking on young people.
Mr Perkins
Someone listening to the hon. Gentleman who did not know about the subject might well think that he was talking about a record of success. The figures that I have referred to, and which the CIPD described as having “failed on every measure”, are the reality of apprenticeships. It is one thing for the Government to say there is a problem here and they are seeking to address it, but the Minister seems to be talking as though everything is going well as the result of this policy. Is there any sense that this Government believe that the levy needs reform or that there is anything they are going to do to increase the number of opportunities for young people?
Alex Burghart
We are increasing the number of opportunities. We got an excellent settlement in the spending review. We are going to have more apprentices at every single level. This is a Government who believe in apprenticeships, who back them and who put their money where their mouth is. Listening to Opposition Members, one could be forgiven for thinking that apprenticeships in this country were worthless. That is not a picture I recognise. It is not a picture that providers I meet recognise. It is not a picture that the apprentices I meet recognise.
Matt Western
No Opposition Member has said that apprenticeships are worthless—quite the opposite. We really value them. I think the frustration is that businesses are saying that the system is not working, whether that is large businesses paying in and not getting any return, or the smaller businesses not getting any gain. The money seems to be being lost to the Treasury, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said.
Alex Burghart
If the hon. Gentleman had been at the awards ceremony last night, he would have struggled to find any provider saying that they were not getting any gain from the scheme, which is what he has implied—in fact, not implied; it is what he said explicitly. Equally, the small and medium-sized employers who were there were getting a great deal of gain from it. The people who are on the apprenticeship schemes are getting a great deal of gain. Where we absolutely agree is that there is a need for more apprenticeships. This Government are going to provide more apprenticeships. We have already provided more apprenticeships at a higher quality than we have ever had before. We are going to see that continue.
Matt Western
Just to be clear, I do not think I implied that at all. What I am saying is that, speaking to businesses, including some major businesses in and around my constituency that I talk to regularly, as I do with Warwickshire College, one of the largest colleges in the country, they have been saying that, while the programme is good and the apprenticeship levy had good intent, it is not working. That is why we tabled the amendment. We want to be constructive and help the Government make it work better.
Sadly, I was not invited to the awards last night. I will check my email, but I do not believe I was. I very much look forward to coming next year.
Alex Burghart
I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman is invited next year. I look forward to seeing him.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green suggests I take the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington as my guest. I was myself a guest. I am sure those organising will have heard his appeal for a ticket.
We want more apprenticeships. We have a great many fantastic employers in this country, providing wonderful opportunities for people at all levels at the moment. We are going to see that increase under the commitment that the Government have made. It is for the Government to consider when might be the right time for a review of apprenticeship reforms, through consultation with stakeholders. For now, we want to focus on improvements to apprenticeships to make them attractive to employers in more sectors. We want to focus on making apprenticeships relevant in new and changing occupations, and on improving quality.
Mr Perkins
That was a very disappointing contribution. To describe the Labour party’s view—that apprenticeships are the gold standard—as that we think apprenticeships are worthless, is beneath the Minister. I hope he will reflect on that. We absolutely do not think they are worthless; we think they should remain the No. 1 opportunity. We think far more young people who are not going to university should be going on to apprenticeships; we think that far more people who are going on to apprenticeships should use those as a vehicle towards university. We see them as one of the most important ways of tackling social mobility—they are a huge priority for us. It is precisely because they are a priority that we are so frustrated with this Government’s failure. I do not recognise the way the Minister represented the Opposition’s opinions on this.
I will return to the point that independent organisations, such as the CIPD, have described the apprenticeship levy as having failed on every measure. Everyone will have heard that we have a Government with no intention to reform the levy. If young people want more opportunities, if they want a Government that will invest more in 2025 than they did in 2015, which this Government will not be doing—even by 2025 they will not reach the amount that was contributed toward apprenticeships in 2015—and if young people want a Government that will change that, they will have to vote Labour. That is the message that is coming out of this debate today. There is one party that believes the apprenticeship levy could be a route to reforming and creating opportunities for young people, and one party that thinks that the apprenticeship levy is working just fine the way it is. That is what this next vote is all about.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 2nd December 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 View all Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 December 2021 - (2 Dec 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
It is good to be back, as we cross the halfway point in Committee proceedings for the Bill. Clause 6 provides an important oversight duty for the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. It will ensure the overall coherence of the system of technical education and training, and will help to ensure that we have the right balance of provision to meet the skills needs of the economy. That includes apprenticeships, technical qualifications and other types of technical education, and training across all 15 technical routes.
Those routes underpin the institute’s occupational maps. They are the groupings for occupations in relation to which apprenticeships and technical education might be approved by the institute. Routes include hospitality and catering, construction, creative and design. The clause places a duty on the institute to keep under review the technical education and training within its remit and, through that review, to consider the impact of its activity on the range and sufficiency of that technical education and training. That means that different types of technical education, such as apprenticeships and qualifications at different levels, will not be looked at in isolation.
The institute will consider whether there is anything further within its powers that should be done, or that should be done differently, to safeguard the coherence and sufficiency of the technical education and training in its remit. The institute may provide the Secretary of State for Education with reports on the range and availability of apprenticeships, qualifications and other technical education and training in the system, raising any matters that arise during its review.
In addition, the clause brings into the institute’s remit other technical education and training that supports entry to occupations that are published by the institute in its occupational maps. That will allow the institute to play a role where education and training links to employer-led standards but does not lead to a qualification—for example, traineeships and skills bootcamps. That role might include, for example, advising or publishing guidance to support alignment with employer-led standards.
Aligning that type of provision to standards, where it is appropriate to do so, will create a joined-up system. It will benefit learners by supporting progression into skilled jobs, as well as further technical training. The institute is best placed to have oversight of the system as a whole because it has oversight of the occupational maps that bring together the occupations for which technical education is appropriate. It guarantees that the employer voice is at the heart of our skills system.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
We do not oppose clause 6. We tabled amendments on apprenticeships, but we are not opposed to the role of the institute in itself. It was an interesting debate, with some really valuable contributions from some of my colleagues. We also had another Conservative who enjoyed himself at a party, and another lesson about the importance of who we invite to our parties. It was very much in keeping with the debates of this week, but we do not oppose the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Additional powers to approve technical education qualifications
Mr Perkins
I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 7, page 10, line 37, at end insert—
“(2A) Notwithstanding the provision in subsection (2), the Secretary of State will appoint by regulations a body other than the Institute to withdraw approval of a technical education qualification at Level 3.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to appoint an alternative body to the Institute to approve the withdrawal of technical education qualifications at Level 3.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 48, in clause 7, page 11, line 19, at end insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State must publish criteria to define what is meant by ‘high quality qualifications’, which can be used as a framework for future deliberations about any defunding of qualifications.
(11) Any future defunding of qualifications must be reviewed by an appointed independent panel of experts, against the criteria set out in subsection (10).
(12) The Secretary of State must publish the proposed list of Level 3 vocational and technical qualifications which are proposed to be defunded, based on the criteria as set out in subsection (10), within 3 months of this Act receiving royal assent.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish the criteria for what they consider to be high quality qualifications worth funding and to set up an independent panel to determine this.
Mr Perkins
The Government have decided to continue with Ofqual as a regulator of academic qualifications in England, and new powers are granted in the Bill to the institute to approve technical qualifications in the future. It is vital that both public bodies have the necessary statutory underpinning to carry out their roles effectively, and to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. We consider that the clause is insufficient, as it does not clearly define the roles of Ofqual and the institute in law to ensure a single regulatory framework, where all qualifications are regulated and treated in exactly the same way.
The Bill proposes a two-tier system of regulatory approval for qualifications, with Ofqual approving and regulating academic qualifications and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education approving technical qualifications. We are worried that that may reinforce the apparent low public confidence in technical qualifications. Ensuring that technical qualifications have parity of esteem with academic ones has been a challenge for successive Governments, and it is precisely one of the things that T-levels set out to address. We are therefore concerned that Ofqual is established as the independent regulator for what are seen as the academic qualifications, with a different organisation for the technical qualifications. We believe that that creates an artificial divide between the two routes.
The roles to be played by Ofqual and the institute in regulating technical qualifications need to be clarified, because the Bill indicates that it will bring about a dual regulatory system. Ofqual is established as the independent regulator under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. That legislation introduced an independent regulator following a period of scandals and instability in the regulation of the qualifications and examination system.
There are worries that the Bill will introduce material conflicts of interest, because the institute will be the owner and provider of T-levels, as well as the regulator, with powers to decide which other technical qualifications might compete with T-levels and should be approved or withdrawn. For funding purposes, the organisation that owns T-levels will decide what happens to the other qualifications that exist. Our amendment seeks to address that and to give greater clarity on the different organisations and bodies.
I turn to amendment 48. It is essential for the Government to unveil what they deem to be useful qualifications before the Bill is passed. As with so much in the Bill, the Minister leaves a great deal to the imagination or to future clarification. Conservative Members have been remarkably trusting of what the Government have told them so far and have not told us a huge amount about what they think, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. When it comes to the votes, however, we have seen that those Members are persuaded that the Minister will deal with everything later.
Amendment 48 would require a panel of experts to determine what a high-quality qualification is, ensuring that if qualifications are abolished, it will be left to those experts—working to criteria set by the Secretary of State—to understand whether that has been done because the qualifications lack the necessary qualities. There is a real concern in many people’s minds that the Government are undermining BTECs and other level 3 qualifications by setting out to defend T-levels, on which they are getting small numbers of people, and trying to get rid of all the alternatives.
If the reason for getting rid of BTECs is, as the Government say, that the qualification is not of the necessary quality, let us see the evidence for that. Let us have a team of experts look at all the factors—people’s ongoing progression routes, whether they get jobs after the qualifications, whether they can access universities and whether they are able to perform when they get to university—and let us see the criteria for establishing whether qualifications are of high quality. So far, the approach seems to have been pretty much of the back-of-a-fag-packet kind.
The Minister’s and the Secretary of State’s predecessors initially stood at the Dispatch Box and said, “We’re scrapping BTECs because they are of low quality.” Then they said, “We’re not going to get rid of them all, just some of them. We will get rid of the poor-quality ones.” We say, reasonably, “All right, but people studying those qualifications today want to know whether what they are studying is of high quality or not.”
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a quality BTEC qualification would lead to skills and jobs? We should be focusing on BTECs, which have a good history, rather than getting rid of them and replacing them with something that is nowhere near as established.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know from what he said on Second Reading that this is a matter of significant personal interest to him because of his own and his son’s history with BTECs, which he outlined. I am in exactly the same position. My son did a level 2 and a level 3 BTEC, having not done particularly well in GCSEs. He subsequently went on to university, completed his bachelor’s degree and is now in the process of completing his master’s. The BTEC provided a pathway and a bridge from—not to put too strong a point on it—failure in mainstream schooling to academic success. We know that BTECs have a history of turning around the lives of people up and down the country. This needs to be handled extremely carefully before decisions are taken that undermine those qualifications.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman allowing me to intervene. Do he and his colleagues not understand that BTEC is just a brand name of the Pearson group? Those high quality qualifications, those outcomes and those assessment criteria will go into things such as T-levels. They will just have a name change. Importantly, they will be led by employers and they will include essential work placements. We talk to members of the public about BTEC, but the only reason we do so is because BTEC is a brand name that has been out there for a very long time. Vocational and technical education will continue to be important.
Mr Perkins
What an interesting intervention. If the hon. Lady is saying that T-levels are simply a rebranding of BTECs—
Lia Nici
With respect, I did not say that. I said that BTECs are an overarching brand name. We have Cambridge Nationals, City & Guilds and so on, but what is important is the content of those qualifications. I am sure that what is of high quality in BTECs will be included in new qualifications such as T-levels.
Mr Perkins
I accept the clarification, and the hon. Lady makes an important point. If she is saying that not all level 3 qualifications are BTECs, I understand that, and I will come on to that when I speak to other amendments. There are many other important qualifications that are not BTECs, but BTECs make up the largest number of them, which is why many of us identify them in those terms. Both BTECs and T-levels are overarching brand names, if we want to put it in such terms. I have no objection to the brand names. If it is felt that T-levels will eventually be viewed with more regard by the public than BTECs—having the word “level” in them makes them sound more like a A-levels—I am fine with that, but the Government initially trashed the BTEC qualifications without telling us which ones they thought were good or bad.
Mr Perkins
If I may, I will respond to my hon. Friend, who makes an incredibly important point. Even more worrying is the fact that the Government initially went out there and said, “This qualification is broken and we are going to replace it,” but when the sector more generally—86% of respondents to their consultation—said, “This is a huge mistake”, the Government said, “Okay, we will only get rid of some of it, not all of it.” When we ask which bit they will get rid of, they say, “The low-quality bit,” but when we ask which bit that is, they say, “We do not know; we are going to do a review.” That is no way to do policy. It needs to be done the other way around. Identify which of the qualifications are not working, do all the research, find out where people are not getting on to the courses and then start talking about why we are getting rid of the qualifications.
Mr Perkins
That is an important point, and the amendment seeks to push the Government on it. They need to identify what those high-quality qualifications are, and quickly.
This is a point of real importance. The Government have started to undermine BTEC qualifications. It makes me genuinely angry, because people are studying for those qualifications now, and they are being told, “That thing you are doing may be pretty worthless and it might not take you anywhere. We don’t know yet, because we haven’t done the review, but we generally think that BTECs are not that great.” At the same time, employers out there are saying, “Well, I have trusted this qualification over many years and I think it is okay.” The Government are performing a review over three to four years. Students will be going on to the qualifications not knowing whether they will be undermined.
The Government really need to show us the evidence; do the research, if they have not yet done it; and come back with a list of the qualifications and what is going to be taken forward. That is what the amendment is designed to achieve.
Lia Nici
On the point about quality and outcomes, we want employers to lead this initiative, along with partners from training and education, because, as the hon. Gentleman has stated in his eloquent and long speeches, we want to ensure that people are trained in skills that are relevant to jobs. We know that we have a huge skills mismatch. We want our employers to be able to lead on that and say, “These are the training areas we want, now and in the future.”
Mr Perkins
I do not disagree with that sentiment, but when the vast majority of employers responding to the Government’s consultation say, “Don’t get rid of BTECs”, how does the hon. Lady arrive at the position that we are getting rid of them because that is what employers want? That is not what employers are saying. I agree that we must make sure have qualifications that are relevant, but parroting that does not alter the fact that employers say they support BTECs.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
I ought to declare that one of my children has a BTEC level 3 extended diploma and went on to university, and the other has a level 3 apprenticeship. I suggest that it is the hon. Gentleman who is undermining BTECs, because he is the only one who has made that point in our debates. The Minister said on Second Reading that we are reviewing BTECs only where they cross over with T-levels, because we do not want duplication of work.
Mr Perkins
It is a strange representation of my position to say that because a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and describe something as poor quality, I am undermining that thing by referring to what the Minister said. I am trying to defend what in many cases is a valid and trusted qualification. As the hon. Lady knows, my children have had a similar experience to hers. It is for precisely that reason that I seek to defend the qualifications.
More important than defending the qualification per se—there probably are some good ones and some bad ones—is to say that the Government should not undermine it until they know what they are talking about. That is the most important point here. They should do the research and then come back and tell us what the policy is, not the other way around.
The Government have set us on a path towards T-levels by undermining the alternatives—I guess because their T-levels have not so far had huge take-up—and they have done so without actually knowing what they are talking about. The hon. Member for Loughborough says that all they are looking to do is prevent duplication. That is absolutely not the case. In so far as there is duplication and reason to believe that a T-level is a better path than an existing qualification—a BTEC, a Council for Awards in Care, Health and Education qualification, or anything else—I have no problem with that, but clearly the Government have set out to rubbish the existing level 3 qualification in order to promote their T-levels. They cannot now row back and say, “Oh, we’re only interested in duplication.”
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
We really do not need to get drawn into the merits of T-levels against BTECs—that is a false choice. For many young people in particular in this country, BTECs are their route through the education system. I have BTEC levels 3, 4 and 5. Does my hon. Friend recognise the 2018 research by the Social Market Foundation, which showed that 26% of university applications are from young people with a BTEC? It is a significant route into higher education.
Mr Perkins
I recognise that point, but this is an area of real worry for me. The Government have said explicitly that they want to reduce the number of people doing university degrees that they consider to have low value. Again, they have not told us which ones. A disproportionately high number of learners from deprived communities are doing BTECs rather than A-levels. I strongly suspect that seeking to reduce the number of people doing certain university degrees will disproportionately affect the cohort who do BTECs. Although my hon. Friend is right that a lot of students, such as my son, the child of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, and the child of the hon. Member for Loughborough, have gone to university via BTECs, I fear that the number will reduce under the Government’s expressed strategy to reduce the number of students doing university degrees that they do not think have value.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has identified that young people from disadvantaged communities are likely to suffer. There will also be a disproportionate impact on both black students and students with special educational needs who use that route into education and higher education.
Mr Perkins
I am glad that my hon. Friend made that incredibly important point. She is right that BTECs, and the further education sector in general, have a far higher proportion of black and ethnic minority students than mainstream schools. They are incredibly important routes, and it is important that they are spoken up for, and that that difference is raised. Different students study in different ways. The Government have a real bias against anything that is not largely exam focused. They believe that only an exam focus gives someone a real qualification, and BTECs have been much more based on a student showing what they have learned over a two-year course, rather than just in a couple of weeks at the end of June.
Such qualifications have been a route for many people to improve their social mobility. That is why the campaign to defend them is so strong. We will talk about BTECs in more detail under future amendments, but amendment 48 seeks to provide that the Government
“must publish criteria to define what is meant by ‘high quality qualifications’, which can be used as a framework for future deliberations about any defunding of qualifications.”
It states:
“Any future defunding of qualifications must be reviewed by an appointed independent panel of experts, against the criteria”
that the Secretary of State has set out. It continues:
“The Secretary of State must publish the proposed list of Level 3 vocational and technical qualifications which are proposed to be defunded, based on the criteria set out…within 3 months of this Act receiving royal assent.”
That amendment would make an important difference. First, the Secretary of State would tell us by what criteria he will continue to fund, or to defund, qualifications. Secondly, to ensure that the decisions are based on academic considerations rather than political ones, it would ensure that the independent panel of experts applies the criteria that he has put in place. Thirdly, it would ensure that the process for level 3 qualifications does not drag on endlessly.
The Government have started the process of undermining the qualifications by describing them as of low quality. That should not go on forever—within three months, we could have a list to say, “This is high quality, this is what you should study in future and this is what, under the criteria set out by the Secretary of State, we will no longer fund.” I find it hard to understand why people would vote against such an amendment. It is widely supported and I am interested in what response we will get from the Minister and others to the amendments.
Andrew Gwynne
I support the amendments because, as I alluded to earlier, I feel passionately about the role that BTECs can play. The way in which the Government have handled the whole withdrawal of BTEC qualifications is a lesson in how such things should not happen.
I therefore support including in the Bill that the Secretary of State should appoint, through regulations, a body other than the institute to withdraw the approval of technical education qualifications. It is important that, before moves such as those we have seen on BTECs, we have a proper and thorough assessment of the qualifications, in particular when they are well known and respected by not just the general population, but academia and employers. That is the whole point of BTECs: everyone knows what a BTEC is and people know what the different levels relate to. BTECs are accepted as a standard qualification in academia and in employment.
Lia Nici
I am concerned that the Opposition are concentrating on BTECs. BTEC is a brand—it is a commercial brand. In ordinary parlance, we might use it as a throwaway term for level 2 or level 3 qualifications, but I am concerned that the Opposition are supporting one brand when we have a multitude of brands. I wonder whether they have been pushed by the brand owner’s lobbying—why are we talking constantly about BTEC and not about other level 2 and 3 providers as well?
Andrew Gwynne
I find that quite offensive—to suggest that Opposition Members have been lobbied by Pearson to support a qualification. It was not always Pearson’s. The hon. Lady talked about a brand, but it was Edexcel before Pearson, and before that it was the Business and Technology Education Council, which is where the term BTEC comes from. The reason that I am standing here to defend BTECs is that I have BTEC levels 3, 4 and 5.
Andrew Gwynne
I am not giving way to the hon. Lady, because I am still answering her. I have BTEC qualifications at levels 3, 4 and 5. I am proud to have gone through the BTEC route, and I want to ensure that the next generation of young people and, indeed, adults have the opportunity to go through the BTEC route, which is well respected and recognised by academia. I think only one university in the whole of the United Kingdom does not accept students with BTEC qualifications. I tell the hon. Lady that any lobbying I have had has come from the local colleges in my constituency, because they are incredibly concerned that withdrawing the qualification completely takes away a route to university for many people.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady can shake her head, but I invite her to Ashton Sixth Form College and Stockport College, and she can get into the real world.
Tahir Ali
I take great exception to the word “brand” being used for the BTEC. The BTEC is not a brand; it is a qualification achieved by those who do not want to pursue an academic route. If BTEC is a brand, GCSEs are a brand, A-levels are a brand, BSc is a brand, masters degrees are a brand. It is nonsense, and it is abhorrent to even refer to BTEC as a brand. The only brands Government Members are interested in are the ones that cost a lot of money.
Andrew Gwynne
From a sedentary position, the hon. Lady says that it is a brand. It is not a brand; it is a qualification. I took BTEC qualifications when they were managed by the Business and Technology Education Council. The gown that I proudly wore at Stockport College’s graduation ceremony in Manchester Cathedral was my BTEC higher national diploma gown—exactly the same gown that BTEC HND graduates wear today, even though it is a Pearson qualification.
Andrew Gwynne
We have heard enough from the hon. Lady. If she has nothing positive to add, I will not give way to her.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I would like to think that the hon. Lady does have something positive to contribute. I say that as an act of decency, really. Like many Members in this room, I am sure, I found inappropriate the accusation that myself and other Opposition Members could have received money for making claims in favour of—[Interruption.] Or that we were being lobbied to speak positively—
Lia Nici
On a point of order, Mr Efford. That is not what I said at all. However, there are other level 2 and 3 providers. We constantly hear about BTECs. There are high-quality providers of other qualifications. We want to move towards T-levels. That is what this is all about.
The Chair
That is not a point of order. However, if the hon. Lady wants to make a contribution on that point, she can catch my eye. Have you completed your intervention, Mr Western?
Matt Western
I simply urge the hon. Lady to retract what she said in her point about Opposition Members being lobbied by Pearson.
Andrew Gwynne
I agree with my hon. Friend. That is what I said in answer to the hon. Lady when she made the assertion. I will happily give way to her if she will withdraw those remarks.
Lia Nici
Thank you very much for allowing me to intervene. I reiterate that Pearson is the owner of the BTEC brand, and because BTEC was being used again and again, I suspected that lots of lobbying was going on. I did not say that any money was changing hands or that anything corrupt was going on. I did not say that.
Andrew Gwynne
I will accept the half-hearted withdrawal from the hon. Lady if she says that she now accepts that we have not been lobbied by Pearson in the way that she implied. She makes the very real point that there are other qualifications at this level. I have a City & Guilds qualification and a Royal Society of Arts qualification at those levels. She is absolutely right that other really good qualifications are available to people to study at levels 2 and 3, and beyond. However, the main and most respected set of qualifications at this level is currently BTECs. I get that the Government want to introduce T-levels, and I support the concept of T-levels, but the hon. Lady and other Government Members must understand that there are some young people for whom T-levels will not be suitable but for whom BTECs are. Having the opportunity to study at BTEC level will allow them to progress to higher education or employment. To take those choices away is a retrograde step.
We are not here to debate the rights and wrongs of what the Government want to do. We are here to debate a sensible amendment that would ensure that, if the Government want to change the framework of qualifications in the way that they say in respect of T-levels and BTECs, there is a thorough assessment of the need to do that.
Andrew Gwynne
I will come to the hon. Lady in a minute. There may be a duplication of some qualifications where one of them is no longer required. In that case, it may well be the right decision to withdraw funding from the BTEC qualification and put it into the T-level qualification. There may well be, however, two qualifications with a similar outcome—BTECs and T-levels, for example—but with different routes that are suitable for different sets of young people, meaning that although they get to the same end point, their starting point is very different. We should not be denying that choice.
Frankly, there will be some qualifications where a BTEC is the only game in town and it excels in providing those qualifications. Those should be retained. We are talking about ensuring that there is a proper assessment when Ministers seek to make academic changes. I will give way to the hon. Lady and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield.
Jane Hunt
That is very kind; I thank the hon. Member. He seems to be agreeing with the Minister this afternoon. To quote from Hansard,
“Our qualifications review is vital to ensuring that what is on the market is the best it can be. I am clear that T-levels and A-levels should be front and centre of the level 3 landscape, but I am convinced that we need other qualifications alongside them, many of which exist now and play a valuable role in supporting good outcomes for students. It is quite likely that many BTECs and similar applied general-style qualifications will continue to play an important role in 16-to-19 education for the foreseeable future.”—[Official Report, 15 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 385.]
I wonder what the hon. Member has to say on that.
Andrew Gwynne
I fully agree with the intentions, and I have just said as much. From speaking to colleges that serve my constituency, the reality is that, although they want to, they will not be able to continue with a whole string of BTEC qualifications. That is the point. Moving away from the rhetoric to the reality, college principals are saying that this will be a retrograde step. Amendment 48, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield spoke to, is about ensuring that there is a proper mechanism to assess these changes. When we are putting through big changes to a well-established sector, we need to make sure that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
We must ensure that we do not undermine opportunities for young people. We must not undo the well-respected and long-standing route of a BTEC qualification. If there is such a decision, we need a proper, detailed assessment. It might not be BTECs next; it might be that somebody decides that City & Guilds is no longer required or that the RSA no longer needs to provide qualifications, and so on. The assessment would need to go through the process that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield set out in an independent and considered way. Ministers and, ultimately, Parliament would then make a sensible decision about how the higher education framework should look.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend was talking a minute ago about different qualifications and cases where a BTEC is the only show in town. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby was saying that we should recognise that there are other level 3 qualifications. Does my hon. Friend agree that an example at level 3 is the CACHE qualification, which is undertaken by people who want to work in the early years sector? The CACHE qualification has a big work experience element, and there are many reasons why early years students might be more likely to choose it over a T-level. The Government seem to have decided that T-levels are the answer and that they should decide what else can fit around them, rather than the other way around, which would be to identify where the holes are and to introduce T-levels to replace them.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why it is sensible to have a mechanism to assess these things properly, impartially and in the round and present that information to Ministers and Members of Parliament.
I have not yet heard any argument about what useful qualifications are. Is my BTEC national certificate in business and finance a useful qualification? Is my BTEC higher national diploma in business and finance a useful qualification? I do not know. The Minister has not set out what a useful qualification is. Whether these things could be done through T-levels or whether the BTEC option is a useful qualification—none of that has been set out. I want it set out independently, which is why I think it is really important that we get a mechanism in place that is independent and offers sound advice to Ministers and MPs.
As I have mentioned before, more than a quarter of higher education applicants—26%—come through the BTEC route. That is not insubstantial. I want to make sure that more young people and more adults come through an appropriate vocational route into higher education. If that is T-levels, great—let us get more people through T-levels into appropriate higher-level qualifications—but for many it will still be BTEC. It needs to be BTEC.
As my colleges are saying, we cannot undermine the ability to provide BTEC courses. At the moment, it is all T-level, T-level, T-level. BTEC is becoming an afterthought—and not necessarily a funded afterthought at that. That is my real concern, and it is why I am pleased to support my hon. Friend’s very sensible and modest but very practical amendments.
Matt Western
I do not want to rehearse points that have already been made, but I highlight the fact that BTECs are written into the Bill, which refers on page 10 to
“BTECs, AGQ or a Diploma”.
When we refer to BTECs, we are referring to them very honestly. There is no preference for any provider or qualification; they just happen to be a significant part of the skills agenda and, as I say, are written into the Bill.
Alex Burghart
May I make a small point of clarification? The hon. Gentleman says that BTECs are written into the legislation. They are, but only because of a successful amendment tabled by Lord Watson in the upper House. They are not in the Government’s original drafting of the Bill.
Matt Western
I take the Minister’s point, but that decision was reached and agreed across the parties in the House of Lords. The Lords accepted that BTECs are a qualification, along with AGQs and diplomas. As a point of reference, that is a pretty honest point made by noble Lords, and we agree. I just clarify that we are not favouring one provider or qualification over another; we are simply using the parlance of the FE sector.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield mentioned, the issue is about criteria. I am really concerned, having spoken to colleges and universities in the higher education sector about the associations between FE colleges and universities. There are so many young people who may struggle through school and the normal academic process, but who have the chance to do a BTEC and rediscover learning and what is right for them. Qualifications such as AGQs and BTECs have provided a real opportunity for those young people. That is why we believe it is important that, rather than pursuing T-levels almost exclusively, as the Government have done, we should make a much more open choice available to young people. We are concerned about the move towards assessing the quality of level 3 courses and about what will be taken into account—hence our amendment.
Alex Burghart
Let us get to the amendments themselves. Amendment 47 would require the Secretary of State to appoint an alternative body, rather than the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, to determine whether approval should be withdrawn from technical qualifications at level 3. The Government think this amendment is unnecessary. Institute approval is a mark of quality and provides currency with business and industry. It shows that employers demand employees who have attained the qualification, and that it delivers knowledge, skills and behaviours needed for particular occupations. Approval would be withdrawn when a qualification no longer meets the criteria against which it was approved and no longer delivers the outcomes that employers need.
It is entirely appropriate that approval and withdrawal of approval decisions based on the same set of criteria should be made by the same body. That body should undoubtedly be the institute. It is best placed to manage our system of technical qualifications and will actively involve employers when making approval and withdrawal decisions, including through its route panels of employers, who hold national sector expertise and knowledge of occupational standards. To be clear, the institute does not have the power to make funding decisions about qualifications. Those powers rest with the Secretary of State. However, we want to fund technical qualifications that hold currency with employers; institute approval will provide a robust basis for this.
Amendment 48 has three elements to it. The first is that the Secretary of State must publish criteria defining what is meant by “high quality” when it comes to deliberations around the defunding of level 3 vocational and technical qualifications. The second is that an independent panel of experts be appointed to review the defunding of any qualifications in accordance with these criteria. The final one is that a proposed list of qualifications in line to have their funding removed is published within three months of this Bill achieving Royal Assent.
On the first point, the Secretary of State was clear on Second Reading that the removal of funding for level 3 qualifications that overlap with T-levels will be based on the extent to which they overlap with T-levels. High-level criteria for the removal of funding for technical qualifications that overlap with T-levels were published in the summer alongside the response to the consultation. Further detail about those criteria will be published in the near future, alongside a provisional list of qualifications in scope for funding removal in 2024. These will include grounds for awarding organisations to appeal against the provisional decisions made the Department for Education.
On the second point, both Ofqual and the institute will play an important role in approving new and reformed qualifications independently from the Department, and the institute’s approval will be a necessary pre-requisite for funding decisions taken by the Department. There is no need for any further independent body being built into the system. On the third aspect of the amendment, we want to have transparent processes for the removal of funding for qualifications and the approval of new ones. I have already made it clear that we will shortly publish the first list of technical qualifications that are in scope for the removal of funding because they overlap with T-levels. The funding of new and reformed qualifications will be based on strong quality standards, to be published next year, and decisions based on approvals involving two expert and independent organisations.
Mr Perkins
That was an interesting contribution from the Minister. On the first aspect of amendment 48, which calls for the Secretary of State to publish criteria to define what is meant by “high-quality qualifications”, he seemed to be saying that, effectively, that has already been published—although there will be more to be published in future. This is so obviously a moving situation; the Government are desperately trying to recover from the position that the previous Secretary of State has put them in. I think amendment 48 is a constructive way of supporting them to get out of the situation they are in.
It appears from what the Minister says that he does not need to vote for the amendment because that will happen anyway. If it will happen anyway, what is the problem with voting for the amendment? Having specific criteria to define what is meant by high-quality qualifications —removing the case-by-case approach and any political agenda, and once again enabling decisions to be made according to academic and, one might almost say, evidence-based criteria, which is what the Secretary of State told us he would be all about—would be entirely sensible, so I do not understand why the Minister will not vote for the amendment.
On the second part of our amendment, the Minister suggested that we do not need an independent body because we have IATE. The whole point about amendment 47 is that an organisation having ownership of a qualification and also being the referee on other qualifications is a pretty complicated and worrying situation. It is a bit like saying that Toyota, which makes electric cars, can also say whether everyone else’s electric cars meet the criteria.
Alex Burghart
It is worth bearing in mind that there really is not a conflict of interest here. The institute is not a market participant. Toyota manufactures and sells cars. The institute will not sell T-levels.
Mr Perkins
The Minister says that there is no conflict of interest. People in the sector believe that there is. Clearly it is a matter of opinion, but the perception of a conflict of interest exists. That is why we tabled the amendment, and I suspect it is why we were asked to do so.
The Minister suggests that he will vote against proposed subsection (12) of amendment 48, but at the same time he says, “Don’t worry. We’re going to publish it shortly. We don’t want to be committed to three months, but it will be shortly.” I do not know what the definition of shortly is if three months is too short. I understand that we are only in a position to press one of the amendments to a vote. We have not been given any encouragement by Government Members that they will support amendment 47, so even though we remain of the view that it would have been sensible, on advice I will withdraw it, but we will seek to divide the Committee on amendment 48. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 7, page 10, leave out lines 38 to 40.
This amendment leaves out subsection (3) of section A2D6 (approved technical education qualifications: approval and withdrawal) to be inserted into the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. The subsection was inserted at Lords Report.
Alex Burghart
Amendment 18 removes an amendment from the Opposition Benches of the Lords that sought to delay the withdrawal of public funding from level 3 qualifications until 2026. The Lords amendment is not needed. We listened to the issues raised in the other place and, as such, the Secretary of State announced an extra year before public funding is withdrawn from qualifications that overlap with T-levels, and before reformed qualifications that will sit alongside T-levels and A-levels are introduced. Our reform programme is rightly ambitious, but we know that it would be wrong to push too hard and risk compromising quality. I believe that that additional year strikes the right balance between giving providers, students and other stakeholders enough time to prepare while moving forward with our important reforms.
The changes are part of reforms to our technical education system that will be over a decade in the making from their inception, building on the recommendations in the Sainsbury review, published in 2016, which itself built on the findings of the Wolf review of 2011. Both reviews found that the current approach is not serving learners or employers well. It fails to incentivise the active involvement of business and industry in technical qualifications, whereas our reforms will place employers at the heart of the system. We need to ensure that we get this right, but it is also important that we act quickly to close the gaps between what people study and the skills that employers need.
T-levels are a critical step change in the quality of the technical offer. They have been co-designed with over 250 leading employers and are based on the best international examples of technical education. We have already put in place significant investment and support to help providers and employers prepare for T-levels. By 2023, all T-levels will be available to thousands of young people across the country, and over 400 providers have signed up to deliver them so far.
We have learned from past reforms that, for T-levels to embed successfully, we should not continue to fund all competing qualifications alongside them. That is what we did when we moved from apprenticeship frameworks to apprenticeship standards: the frameworks were removed. Apprenticeship standards are the same employer-led standards on which T-levels and higher technical qualifications are based, and soon there will be a broader range of qualifications as part of our ambition for a coherent system in which employers play a leading role throughout the technical qualifications landscape. The Government’s amendment will allow those vital reforms to be implemented so that more young people and employers can benefit from a high-quality technical offer, with one extra year to help providers and other stakeholders to prepare. That extra year does not require legislation.
Amendment 19, which also stands in my name, seeks to reverse another amendment from the Lords. That amendment said that no student would be deprived of the right to take two BTECs, an applied general qualification, or a diploma or an extended diploma. All learners should be able to attain the skills they need to succeed in higher education or progress into skilled employment. A-levels and T-levels will be the best academic and technical options for most 16 to 19-year-olds, and we want as many young people as possible to benefit from them. However, that does not mean that we are removing all applied general qualifications. We see a valuable role for such qualifications in the reformed landscape where there is a need for them and where they meet our new quality and other criteria. I assure Members that we recognise that there is a need for other qualifications —ones that provide knowledge and skills that are not covered by T-levels, or are less well served by A-levels.
In our response to the level 3 consultation in the summer, we set out the qualifications that we intend to fund alongside A-levels and T-levels. They include large academic qualifications, such as BTECs or similar, as a full programme of study in areas that do not overlap with T-levels and are less well-served by A-levels: performing arts or sports science, for example. Students will continue to be able to study mixed programmes, with applied general-style qualifications alongside A-levels, where there is a need and where they meet our new other criteria. That includes areas such as engineering, applied science and IT, in which T-levels are also available.
Successive reviews have found that the current approach has led to a complex and confusing market that is variable in quality, which does not serve students or employers well. Streamlining the qualifications landscape will help to simplify the market and provide students with both quality and clarity of choice. I therefore commend these amendments to the Committee.
Mr Perkins
This is a really important moment in the passage of this Bill, because Government amendments 18 and 19 seek to remove two of the most important amendments that were secured in the House of Lords. The Minister described the first of those as an Opposition amendment, but we should remember that it only passed because of the votes of Conservative peers, as well as Labour, Liberal Democrat and other peers. Indeed, the Conservatives who voted for that amendment included such renowned and respected peers as Lord Willetts, former Minister of State for Universities and Science, who was largely seen as one of the pioneers of policy in this area during his time in government; Lord Clarke, former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer; and Lord Howard, former Conservative party leader. These are not people who often vote against the Government—well, Lord Clarke did quite a bit. [Laughter.] On the whole, they are not people who regularly vote against the Government. They do so only with the greatest of regret and the greatest of persuasion, so when people such as Lord Howard, Lord Willetts and Lord Clarke say that this is a moment for the Government to pause before they get this wrong, then joking aside, they should be listened to seriously.
Mr Perkins
Lord Baker made his support for this approach known. I think he was absent from the vote, but he very much supported the move towards protecting this. In fact, he described the Government’s approach as
“an act of educational vandalism”.
The Government have made an important concession. It is not in the Bill, but the Secretary of State has agreed to an additional one-year moratorium on the defunding of level 3 qualifications. That is important, and I have two points to make on that. First, it means that level 3 qualifications will not be defunded in this Parliament. If anyone out there wishes to ensure that level 3 qualifications—they offer real student choice, are respected by the sector and understood by employers—are defended and maintained in the future, they will have the opportunity: they will be able tao vote Labour in a general election. The fact that level 3 qualifications will not be defunded in this Parliament is an important concession. The opportunity to save the Government from that folly will be there in a general election, and we will push that argument very strongly.
Secondly, the clause that the Government are attempting to get rid of stated that there would be a four-year moratorium. We have heard that they are not having the four-year one, but they will have a one-year moratorium. Why not replace the words “four years” with “one year” in their amendment? At least then it would exist in the Bill. It seems churlish for the Government to say, “We will give you an assurance that we will do that, but we are still not going to have it in the Bill, even though we are offering you this commitment.” It is deeply disappointing that the Government have removed an amendment that enjoyed cross-party support in the other place. There are real concerns that the number of students currently doing alternative level 3 qualifications will not be well served going forward.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby was frustrated that Opposition Members kept referring to BTECs rather than recognising the variety of different level 3 qualifications, but it is important to say that BTECs are the largest number of those level 3 qualifications. Last year 230,000 students did a level 3 BTEC. The Government have an aspiration that in four years’ time there will be 100,000 students doing T-levels. It remains to be seen whether they will be successful in that. If they are, there will still be 130,000 students in four years’ time who will not have access to that qualification if those BTECs disappear, and that is why it is so important that we ensure those ladders of opportunity are not removed.
As our next amendment will show, when I will go into more detail, we need a lot more scrutiny of the success of T-levels before BTECs are defunded. We are still in the pilot phase. I will talk more about T-levels when we debate the next amendment, but before Members vote on this one, they need to understand that we are still only in the second year of the very first intake for those qualifications. Only three of the qualifications were actually started 15 months or so ago. Some of them are in the first weeks of being studied, and already the Government are making decisions about what will happen to the alternatives before the pilot has even taken place. It is like getting rid of a ship because you are in the process of starting to invent an aeroplane. It is an unreasonable way to operate.
There are real concerns around the narrow pathways devised for T-levels. BTECs are often a route to university for those who have chosen not to go down the A-level track.
On Government amendment 18, we believe that the House of Lords was correct to introduce the four-year moratorium, and the Government should respect that. If they do not, and they want us to believe that we can trust them that there will be a one-year moratorium, instead of a four-year one, why not put that in the Bill?
Government amendment 19 restricts additional opportunities for studying level 3 qualifications for people who have already got one. When the Prime Minister announced the lifetime skills guarantee at Exeter College, he talked about the need for people to retrain. It was at the height of the covid pandemic, and he said that some people are in areas that might not have a future, and that we need to allow them to retrain. The whole principle of the lifetime skills guarantee was around people retraining—perhaps they are in travel, tourism or hospitality, and we will move them to health and social care or engineering. However, when it comes to the guarantee, they cannot do that, because people are only guaranteed to do one level 3—if someone gets their level 3 at 19 and then wants to retrain at 40, they will have to pay for it. That will definitely be a barrier for people.
The Lords, very sensibly, introduced an amendment saying that
“no student would be deprived of the right to take two”
level 3 qualifications. We sometimes hear from Government Members about these perennial students who, if allowed to do these funded qualifications, would do qualification after qualification—although I do not believe such people really exist in any serious number. Whether someone in their 50s might do a degree as a matter of interest is a different matter, but no one does a level 3 vocational qualification just for the banter—they do it because it is a route to a job.
Even if that was true, and we accepted that there must be a limit on it somewhere, the peers did introduce a limit. They simply said that for a lifetime skills guarantee to be worthy of the name “guarantee”, we have to let people do a second qualification if they need to retrain at some point. The Government are getting rid of that. We have just heard from the Minister; I would be very interested to understand why he thinks that someone who did a level 3 qualification 10 or 15 years ago and now wants to do a different level 3 should not be able to do that. He is proposing Government amendment 19, which scraps the right for people to do a second qualification, without, as far as I can recall, referring to it in any sort of detail whatever. People will be pretty disappointed with that.
More than 9 million jobs are currently excluded from the lifetime skills guarantee, which we will go into in more detail later. When whole sectors such as tourism and hospitality have been left out, it is a misnomer and a misrepresentation to call it a guarantee. It is an aspiration and nothing more.
I strongly oppose Government amendment 18, which removes the very sensible moratorium to protect level 3 qualifications, until the Government have worked out what the hell they are doing. I also oppose Government amendment 19, which removes the assurance that a student who has done a BTEC or any kind of level 3 qualification will be able to access a second one if, in the future, they need to.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield on the Front Bench. Yet again, I find myself agreeing with the Lords in their amendments, which, as a republican, is sometimes quite tricky. However, as my hon. Friend said, these eminently sensible amendments were put forward with cross-party agreement.
I find it fairly odd that Government Members want to restrict competition. For a party that seems to have market competition at the heart of many of its policies, I find it strange that they are trying to narrow it and not allow students to have choice.
Mr Perkins
I slightly challenge my hon. Friend’s idea that this is a party that is in favour of market competition. We know it is in favour of a short list of one, devised by who knows the relevant Minister. They claim to be interested in market forces, even if their policies often do not follow that idea.
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is a pity that the cameras are not in this Committee room or he would have seen my wry smile in response to his comments. The reason behind wanting to ensure that applied general qualifications—BTECs—are still available for a longer period of time, in greater breadth, is all about student choice. Ultimately, this is a Bill about skills and post-16 education, which should have students at its heart. That is why I want to make the case to retain those Lords amendments and the case against the Government’s proposed amendments to take them out of this Bill.
On retaining the moratorium for four years before any change to the breadth of BTECs, I want to query a point that the Minister made, which I hope he can clarify. He referred to the Wolf report and the Sainsbury report. The briefing I have received from the Sixth Form Colleges Association, which I have worked with as the governor of a sixth form college, rightly flags up that the Wolf report says that BTECs are
“valuable in the labour market, and a familiar and acknowledged route into higher education”.
The Sainsbury report did not consider BTECs or A-levels as
“reform of this option falls outside the Panel’s remit”.
So, the Department’s case for scrapping BTECs rests on one report that rated them highly—
“valuable in the labour market”—
and another report that did not look at them at all. I would be grateful for some clarity on that point in the Minister’s subsequent comments.
On the second part, around being able to study for a second level 3 qualification, the case was made very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. As only a recent entrant to this place, I have spent my whole career in the workplace with people who want to better their careers. Looking at the pace of change of within the workplace over the last 10 or 20 years, many staff I worked with may have had some sort of qualifications—BTECs or whatever—but they needed to up their digital skills to become managers and to start leading teams. This amendment would mean that they would not have been able to do that if they wanted to take their career further. I think that shows a complete lack of understanding of what the world of work can be like for many people.
If people do not have money or savings, they will not be able to do that, which goes against everything that I want to see for people and social mobility, so that poor working class people in my town can get on and they are not held back by the short-sighted, narrowing of opportunities that these amendments from the Lords sought to prevent. The Government are seeking to narrow opportunities in the Bill.
One point made by my hon. Friend was that some areas are not included in these proposals. In Luton South, we have the town centre, which has lots of retail, hospitality, pubs and hotels, particularly linked to Luton airport, but the area would not be included. That is so narrow and makes me think, “Well, what is this all about?” Is it all about a two-way street, where someone who is poor will go and do technical qualifications, and someone who is able and has connections can go and do A-levels? The gap will not be filled by many of the applied general qualifications, which reflect the workplace.
It is not just about the qualification at the end; it is also about how the assessment takes place throughout the course of the qualification and the different assessment methods. I want to see that recognition. The point was raised earlier that it is not just about some exams at the end of two years, regardless of whether people are following a technical or an A-level route.
I would be interested to hear from the Minister about some the requirements around the T-levels with regards to employer placements, and the spread and availability of them. We appreciate that we are in the pilot phase of some of those T-levels, but that is why it is so important to ensure sufficient review of how T-levels have rolled out and how the success of the students taking them has manifested itself.
Will there be sufficient placements for students? That is one question and, to link back to much of the debate we had on Tuesday about the formation of the skills plans, another is how will students travel to those placements? When education maintenance allowances were taken away from many students, they could not afford a bus fare. To be aspirational for many of our students, they might have to travel out of area—I speak as someone who represents a town, but other colleagues have talked about smaller towns, villages and other areas—but how will they travel and get about?
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is touching on something that is important, but often overlooked about BTECs. Yes, they can be done as full-time qualifications, but many people do them on day release. People are already in employment, and they are released on a day to get a level 3, level 4 or level 5 qualification to make progress. Do we not absolutely have to keep that in the system?
Rachel Hopkins
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. That is so vital, in particular for people with more flexible arrangements in the workplace. The pandemic has shown that people can work more flexibly through need, as much as through preference. For many, that day release is important. Many further education colleges work with local employers in their areas to ensure that the qualifications and the day releases meet the need. We must ensure that that can continue. We must not—as the phrase goes—throw the baby out with the bathwater. I hope that the Minister will address my points in his closing remarks.
Andrew Gwynne
I rise to support the Opposition’s quest to retain their lordships’ amendments to the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said, the amendments are common sense. As someone who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, the very figures he mentioned, who now sit in the other place, were leading lights of the Governments of the late Baroness Thatcher and John Major. They have huge knowledge in these areas—whether I agree with them or not politically.
No one can deny that Lord Baker was an Education Secretary of some standing. He knows what he is talking about. No one can say that Lord Clarke is not a man of great knowledge and understanding in these areas. Other former Ministers of those Administrations and a former leader of the Conservative party know what they are talking about when it comes to these issues.
Matt Western
So many senior experienced educationalists from previous Administrations over the decades—notably on the Conservative side, but also the likes of Lord Blunkett—came together. They understand the sector, and the fact that they have concluded and agreed on why such qualifications need to be retained is most telling.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was going to come on to the Labour support in the House of Lords for the amendments. It is absolutely right that, when it comes to replanning a whole part of the further education sector, we should get that cross-party unanimity as far as possible. We want these changes to succeed, to last and to live through the current Government and future Administrations, as BTECs have done.
Mr Perkins
To reinforce my hon. Friend’s point, he talks about Lord Howard, the former leader of the Conservative party, who voted for the amendment. For once, actually, I am thinking what he is thinking.
Andrew Gwynne
I can see what my hon. Friend did there. For once, I agree not only with my hon. Friend—I always agree with him—but with the noble Lord Howard. Of course, he did not need to be asked the question 46 times to give the answer that we wanted.
I went through the BTEC route. For the Committee’s benefit, I will not go into all that again, but I believe that it is still a viable route for so many people—young people in particular but also adults—who want to better themselves and pursue a new career. To take away some of these options in the way in which the Government seek is regressive. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister is right that if the Government will not accept a four-year moratorium—even though they should—they should place the one-year moratorium in the Bill so that that is clear. I support their lordships fully on this issue.
I get what Ministers are saying about the risk of compromising quality, but nobody has ever made the case to me that the BTECs at my local colleges—Stockport College, Tameside College and Ashton Sixth Form College —are compromising quality. They give young people and adults some of the best opportunities to better themselves and reskill themselves.
Rachel Hopkins
The point about the quality of these qualifications has already been made. So many young people get to really good universities on a BTEC qualification, and surely those universities would not accept qualifications that were not up to scratch.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe that just one university in the whole of the United Kingdom does not accept BTEC qualifications, and it is not Oxford or Cambridge—they do. If these qualifications are good enough for Oxbridge, they obviously set the standard that academia wants to see.
It is more than that. BTEC is about more than reaching the same standards in theory as A-levels or years 1 and 2 of an undergraduate degree. There is also the experience and opportunities that BTECs bring to the people studying them, which academic qualifications—and possibly even T-levels—cannot.
I want the Minister think about the fact that some colleges are requiring GCSEs in English and maths to be considered for a T-level qualification That is fine, but what about those who do not have those qualifications but do have a whole string of other GCSEs at the equivalent of grade C and above, in old money? Do we really want to hold back our young people and keep them doing resits until they can get on to a T-level qualification, or do we want them to progress through T-levels and possibly study for English or maths resits at the same time? That really concerns me. I see colleges in Greater Manchester suggesting those entry requirements for T-levels, even though that is not necessarily the Government’s intention. We must look at that.
With BTEC, students who did not have GCSEs had the opportunity of going through a BTEC first before progressing to BTEC national and BTEC higher national. It is really important that we do not take opportunities away from young people. We should be increasing opportunities.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I just want to be clear that, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State indicated that the requirements for maths and English were being removed. I just want to make sure that the hon. Gentleman has not misunderstood that or is trying to suggest otherwise.
Andrew Gwynne
No, and I said clearly that that is not the intention of Ministers, but it is already happening de facto on the ground. Although colleges do not need to consider whether someone has English or maths qualifications, some are saying that they want people to have them. We have to ensure that that does not happen. At this early stage, the Minister can use his influence to ensure that colleges stick not only to the spirit of what was said on Second Reading but to the letter of what we want, which is no young person missing out on the opportunity to follow the BTEC further education route, as is currently the case.
Lastly, I will talk about depriving people of the right to take two BTECs, AGQs, diplomas or extended diplomas. In the good old days, when someone left school and went to work in what was likely to be their job for the entirety of their working life before they retired, these things did not matter. Today, the workplace and employment market are incredibly fluid. We cannot guarantee a job for life in 2021, and we certainly cannot guarantee that there will be a job for life in a decade’s time, or even two decades’ time. People going through college now cannot be guaranteed that they will remain in one job for the whole of their career. The reality is that they will have lots of jobs. The world of work will change, the challenges for people in the workplace in the future will change, and the way we work will change, so the way we learn about advances in technology and new job opportunities has to change as well. It may well be that somebody is currently employed in an area that will not exist in 10 years’ time. Are we seriously going to deny them an opportunity to reskill in a whole new area of work that is currently unforeseen but might develop? Are we really going to be so rigid as to say that somebody cannot go back to college to do a qualification at the same level as the one they got 20 years ago but is no longer relevant to modern-day work?
I support the Lords amendment. It is absolutely sensible for the future, because we do not know what the future holds. Are we really going to hold back a proportion of the workforce who might have to retrain or start literally from scratch and do another level 3 qualification in a whole different area because the level 3 qualification they did 20 or 30 years ago is no longer relevant to the modern world of work? That is absolutely crazy.
Lia Nici
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I have been bobbing up and down a lot. I feel that I need to bring a little bit of balance to proceedings. I am concerned that people listening to the debate will be full of fear and dread about what may be happening. My concern is that the mantra has been that BTECs are going, it will be terrible, it will hold everybody back and working-class young and older people will not be able to do anything. That really is not a proper representation of what is happening.
We have had A-levels in our education system for many decades. They are not a brand. They are a qualification. T-levels will mean that vocational qualifications will be better understood. Not only will they be high quality, but they will have been shaped in part by our LSIPs and employers.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Is it the case, like it is for me, that when my hon. Friend talks to employers in her constituency they often say, “We’ve got the jobs, but haven’t got the skills locally”? The Bill will play a big part in changing that.
Lia Nici
My hon. Friend is right. A huge number of jobs are available. What we need to do now, and the Bill will enable us to do it, is pivot on an axis to ensure that employers are fully involved. We have some very good education providers in post-compulsory technical that work with employers, but a lot more work needs doing. When I go to see employers in my constituency, they all say that they have jobs available but cannot get people with the right skills. We have to do something about that, not only for our employers and our economy but for our constituents.
My constituency of Great Grimsby is the most wonderful place to live, but our skill levels are not where they need to be, for people in and out of work. If we are to level up for everybody across the country, particularly in my home town of Great Grimsby, T-levels will be a fantastic way for us to move forward. Apprenticeships are also extremely valuable, as people can earn while they learn. I am extremely concerned that we seemingly have a moral panic to try to get headlines to worry young people. I say to young people, and older people who are looking to train to level 3 qualifications, that it is not the disaster that it is being portrayed as for the sake of headlines.
There is a reason we do not want a long moratorium on such things as BTECs, which the Opposition are mentioning over and over again. I have worked in further education for 22 years. I have taught secondary school students and lectured at higher education level, and I happen to have a diploma at level 3, level 4 and level 5—a higher national diploma—one of which happens to be a BTEC. We want to ensure that education providers know exactly what is happening with a deadline. They are now ready to pivot on that. I have been talking to my biggest provider, Grimsby Institute of Further and Higher Education, and its experience of T-levels so far is utterly outstanding.
Lia Nici
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Great Grimsby has a history of fishing. Actually, it was the Icelandic cod wars and joining the EU that ended our fishing industry. We still have a very important fish processing industry that employs around 5,000 to 6,000 people in the town directly. I am working with the fishmongers’ association, Seafish, and my local colleges and industry to look at new apprenticeships and T-levels, so he is right: I am working on that. It is extremely important, because we have lots of people in our communities who are working at extremely high levels and have no qualifications. We need to consider not only people who are new into the workplace but those who are working and are specialists in their field. I see them every week when I am out and about. They talk passionately and are very knowledgeable—to level 5, 6, 7 and beyond—and they worked their way through. We need to ensure that qualifications can do that as well.
Andy Carter
My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of engaging with colleges and employers. Does she agree that it is also critical that we engage with young people and hear their experiences of T-levels? Priestley College in my constituency was one of the first in the UK to undertake T-levels, and one of the best visits I have had in my almost two years of being the Member for Warrington South involved sitting with T-level students and hearing their experiences of going out into the workplace and learning in a very different way from what they expected. We have been able to gather a tremendous amount of insight, and we can build on that. My hon. Friend made the point earlier that Opposition Members’ suggestion that vocational qualifications are moving in a direction that is perhaps not advantageous for young people is simply unfounded.
Lia Nici
I thank my hon. Friend for making that extremely important point. I speak to T-level students who are absolutely and utterly convinced that this is the way to go forward. I spoke earlier about my career in education and did a quick tot up of how many young people I have put through diplomas at level 3. I think about 45,000 students have been through my classrooms, studios and workshops, and they now work all over the world in a whole range of different roles within their specialism. It is really important to say that we do not want to put people in an absolute state of panic, because there are really good qualifications and jobs out there.
I will make a couple of points before I finish. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said that the Conservative party does not like competition, but I think there is a misunderstanding here. T-levels are not a brand; they are qualifications. All those different organisations, such as Cambridge, Pearson and the City and Guilds, will all be able to feed in and offer T-levels.
I want to pick up the point about the Wolf report, which said that BTECs are high quality. The Wolf report came out in 2011, so I would be cautious about looking at something that was published 10 years ago.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I want to quiz her on the assertion that BTECs are a brand. I studied for a BTEC national certificate in business and finance, and I qualified in 1992. Is that a qualification or a brand?
Lia Nici
Actually, the hon. Gentleman has a diploma, which happens to be accredited by the examining board of BTEC. That is what I am trying to explain. Although this has been a very interesting debate, I felt that I had to stand up and say something because there was some misrepresentation and some panic being put into this, which I really do not think is a positive thing for young people and their parents and carers, or for more mature students who are looking to do level 3.
The Chair
Order. Could we come back to the amendment? We have dealt with whether T-levels and BTECs are brands—we have been around that circuit already. I do not think we need to repeat that part of the debate.
Lia Nici
Thank you, Mr Efford. People will still be able to study on day release and part time. I know that everybody is passionate about this issue, but we need to be balanced. We all want our young people and older people to be able to study for qualifications that are high quality and that will help them to go on to further education or to get good-quality jobs, and I believe that the Bill will do that.
Mr Perkins
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Lady, whose contribution I did not entirely agree with. However, it has been so rare in our debates to have contributions from Conservative Back Benchers, so I do not want to discourage them when they take place.
There are a few things that I want to say. First, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby says that she is interested in providing qualifications that employers will value, but 86% of those who were consulted on the Government’s review agree with the amendment that the Lords put in and disagree with the Government’s intention to take it out. If her purpose is to do what employers want, she should be voting for the Lords amendment rather than against it. She says it was her belief that the BTEC was simply a brand, but it is clearly a qualification. To “other” BTECs as if they are somehow lesser than A-levels and T-levels is a considerable mistake. The amendments are very much undermined.
Matt Western
I want to draw attention to the points that have been raised by the Social Market Foundation and Universities UK on how important qualifications such as BTECs have been. There is a fear that T-levels will not allow for the same degree of social mobility as has been possible in the past, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, students with SEND and BME pupils.
Mr Perkins
I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said she speaks to employers in her constituency who say that they are not able to attract employees with the skills they need. We have all heard that refrain. That is precisely why introducing a reform that could see 130,000 students without the qualification they are currently getting is a hugely retrograde step.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby says that she is concerned that people watching this debate will be misinformed. I have to say to her that the only people watching the debate know the sector very well indeed—there is not widespread competition for the number of viewers that “Coronation Street” gets. Those watching this debate already understand the sector. They are precisely the people who have responded to that consultation in great numbers—86% of whom have said that we should support this Lords amendment rather than get rid of it. I think that her worries about people in the sector being misinformed are very much out of line. Actually, it is the sector that is coming to us and saying, “Slow down. T-levels may well have real value, but we don’t yet know. Before you chuck the baby out with the bathwater, take it steady. Let’s support the Lords amendment and vote against the Government one.”
Alex Burghart
This is another interesting debate. It is another opportunity for the Opposition to fawn over former Conservative Secretaries of State and to think back to the wonderful childhoods they had under Baroness Thatcher—[Interruption.] There are some great opportunities for 16-year-olds in Greater Manchester, it would appear.
I appreciate that there are cross-party points to be made. I do not need to remind the Committee that a lot of this work originates from the pen and mouth of Lord Sainsbury, who in 2016 put together the review that would ultimately lead to the design of T-levels, which he has been intimately involved in. I imagine that most members of the Committee have received communication from his lordship in the run-up to this debate, in which he has made it very clear that the reason we needed T-levels was because there was a need at level 3 for large qualifications, designed by employers, that met the needs of employers and offer serious work placements, and that this would enhance the level 3 offer immeasurably.
Lord Sainsbury is a very strong Labour advocate for this policy. On his advice, we have designed a new suite of qualifications at level 3, designed with 250 employers, with nine weeks of work experience put in. It was wonderful to hear a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby, because I have had the same experience. I have had the pleasure of doing this job for 11 weeks or so now, and I have travelled across the country meeting T-level providers. The level of enthusiasm among staff, pupils and employers who are providing the work placements is enormous. It is an electric moment in education.
I fully respect the serious point that the hon. Member for Luton South made about capacity for work placements, an issue that the Department is taking very seriously. My officials have absolutely busted a gut during the pandemic to make sure that young people on T-levels at this uniquely challenging time do not miss out on their work placement. I am pleased to say that the vast majority of young people who started their course in September 2020 have found a work placement, though a few have not, and we are working very hard to make sure that they do. It is a promising sign that even during a pandemic, we managed to do that, but we know that we will have to work hard on this issue, and we do not take the challenge lightly.
Rachel Hopkins
I hope that the Minister will appreciate my concern. There are 10,000 students in the T-level pilots. He says that the Government are almost there on work placements, but nearly 250,000 people are studying for level 3 BTECs, so there would need to be a significant transition. I hope that he accepts those concerns about placements.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady makes a serious point of which we are mindful, but obviously there are lots of areas where there are no T-levels at the moment, and there are great opportunities for work experience; we are already engaging with employers and colleges.
Access has come up repeatedly. There is absolutely no good reason why a young person at 16 to 19 who is ready to study at level 3 should not do a T-level. The idea that large numbers of young people aged 16 to 19 will be shut out of studying at level 3 because of T-levels is simply wrong. There was a potentially serious obstacle in the English and maths exit requirement, which is why we removed that. I say in all seriousness to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that if there are colleges out there still using an English and maths entry requirement, I would like to know which ones they are—I will happily speak to their principals. I do not expect him to put that on record in Hansard, but I would be grateful if he supplied me with that information.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the Minister for that, because as I said, we really need to bottom this out. We absolutely need to make sure that we apply not just the spirit of what the Minister said on Second Reading, but the letter of it. I will certainly supply him with that information.
Alex Burghart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that undertaking, because this is about creating more and better opportunities. On the point about destinations, a number of MPs here have said that BTECs have led to higher education. That is excellent. There is no reason at all why T-levels should not do the same thing. Many universities have already come forward to say that they will recognise them, and we are very confident that the number will increase.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield raised a point about capacity. I am afraid that he may have got his figures slightly confused. In steady state, there is absolutely no cap on the number of people who can do T-levels. I think one estimate was that each cohort could be 100,000 people. There is plenty of space for anyone who is at the right level to do a T-level.
The Government are moving at pace, but over quite a long period. This process started in 2011, and was boosted by the work of Lord Sainsbury in 2016. We introduced our first T-levels in September 2020, and we will not begin defunding until 2024. We are taking proportionate steps to introduce a new generation of level 3 qualifications that will present great new opportunities to students, providers, employers and the economy.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6—T-levels: Duty to review—
“(1) Two years after the date on which the first T-levels are completed, the Secretary of State must perform a review of the education and employment outcomes of students enrolled on T-level courses.
(2) No qualifications may be defunded until the Secretary of State’s duty under subsection (1) has been undertaken.”
Alex Burghart
I rise to speak in support of clause 7. Much of the debate so far has centred on the level 3 qualifications that will be funded for young people in the reformed landscape. This is an important matter, and one that we have consulted on extensively as part of the post-16 qualifications review. We are making changes based on feedback. We are allowing that extra year before implementing our reform timetable, and we are removing the English and maths exit requirement from T-levels, bringing them more in line with other level 3 study programmes, such as A-levels.
However, I would like to bring us back to the specific purpose of this legislation, which is focused on the approval and regulation of technical qualifications. For the majority of technical and vocational qualifications, little scrutiny is applied to the content before they enter the publicly funded market under existing arrangements. That is in contrast to the more rigorous arrangements in place for general qualifications such as A-levels, and we do not think that it is right. We want students and employers to be confident that every technical qualification is high quality and holds genuine labour market currency.
Clause 7 introduces powers to enable the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to approve a broader range of technical qualifications than it is currently able to, with a particular focus on alignment with employer standards. Standards are developed by groups of employers and are managed and published by the institute. They set out the knowledge, skills and behaviours that are essential for a person to be competent in an occupation. Apprenticeships, T-levels and higher technical qualifications are based on those standards. T-levels have been co-designed with more than 250 leading employers and raise the quality bar of the technical offer at level 3. We want to ensure that all technical qualifications are high quality and meet the skills needs of business and industry. Extending the institute’s role will make it certain that the majority of technical qualifications available in England are based on standards and deliver the skills outcomes that employers have told us they need.
This clause places a duty on the institute to regularly review the qualifications that it approves, upholding quality over time and ensuring continued labour market currency. It will give the institute the power to manage the number of qualifications in targeted areas—by issuing a moratorium on the approval of new qualifications—if the institute judges that there is a risk of inappropriate proliferation. Furthermore, it will enable the institute to charge fees for the approval of qualifications, subject to regulations published by the Secretary of State.
As the Sainsbury review found, the current approach is not working, with over 12,000 qualifications at level 3 or below. It has led to a complex and bloated landscape of qualifications, which is confusing for learners and does not serve them or employers well. Our reforms to technical qualifications will set a new quality bar, where the content of qualifications lines up with the skills needs of the workplace.
New clause 6 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the education and employment outcomes of T-level students two years after the first cohort has completed the programme. It would also prevent the removal of funding from qualifications until the review has been carried out. T-levels are a much-needed step change in the quality of the technical offer for 16 to 19-year-olds, based on the same employer-led standards as apprenticeships. Their design draws on the best international examples of technical education.
A number of mechanisms are already in place to keep T-levels under review, including the institute’s arrangements for reviewing T-level technical qualifications in live delivery. We are working closely with students, providers, employers and universities to ensure that stakeholders are clear on the range of progression opportunities that T-levels present. From 2024, we will publish statistics on the attainment of the T-level technical qualification and the employment outcomes of T-level graduates. That is set out in the technical guidance of the 16 to 18 accountability measures.
In addition, the Bill already provides for the review of approved technical qualifications. New section A2D8 under clause 7 places a duty on the institute to regularly review the qualifications it has approved. That includes T-levels, higher technical qualifications and the other qualifications it will approve as part of our reforms. I therefore do not support the inclusion of new clause 6 in the Bill.
Mr Perkins
Labour welcomes T-levels in principle but has concerns about their implementation. The current cohort of pupils in the first year is pretty small, and there is insufficient evidence to assess the success, or otherwise, of the qualifications at this stage. We have real concerns about the work experience element of T-levels. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South spoke about whether there are enough employers able to offer work experience, whether that work experience will be relevant and meaningful, and how it will be assessed. What safeguards will be in place to ensure that the work placements are relevant? Will there be a way of pupils failing their work experience other than by not attending?
We are also concerned that the amount of work experience required will restrict the number of institutions that are able to offer a broad suite of these qualifications. We think the failure to achieve the amount of work experience placements might mean that not enough of the qualifications are available at different institutions. A lot of students are finding that if they want to do the T-level that would take them towards the career they want, they might have to travel a very long way, because there will not be the same availability nearby.
The Government are attempting to trash the reputation of alternative and established level 3 qualifications in the minds of employers, students and their parents, while the T-levels are still standing on shifting sands. They were announced initially as a vocational route to take 18 to 19-year-olds towards the world of work. When a study in September 2020 showed that Russell Group universities were not willing to take T-levels as entry qualifications on to science and engineering degrees, the Government were entirely sanguine, describing them as ladders to work, not to university. Yet the Secretary of State’s current favourite anecdote is of a student he met at Barnsley College called Greg, we are told, who now believes that he has the pick of universities because he is studying T-levels, so the outcome destination for T-level students in the Government’s mind seems to have shifted overnight from the workplace to university, without any evidence as to why that is.
Just like the Minister, I recently visited a college to meet students and lecturers on T-level qualifications—I went to Derby College last week. I also met students who were doing other level 3 qualifications. I asked the 14 students doing the science qualification at Derby, “How many of you are pleased that you did this qualification?” Fourteen hands went up. They were very pleased with the qualification. They had been doing it for only a couple of months, but they were really encouraged. I went on later to meet students doing a BTEC level 3 qualification in digital technology, working towards gaming. I asked them the same question, and once again every hand went up.
Matt Western
I want to clarify a point—really just for my own clarification. What number of GCSEs are people supposed to have, and at what grade, before they are eligible to take a T-level, and how does that differ from a BTEC, an AGQ or other forms of diploma?
Mr Perkins
As I understand it, from what the Secretary of State has said, going forward there will not be the need to have a maths or English GCSE before a student does a T-level. In the future, it will be similar to how it is currently, but last year’s cohort—the first cohort—did have to have GCSEs in maths and English before they were allowed to do the qualification.
Alex Burghart
To clarify the point that the hon. Gentlemen are discussing with each other, there was never an entry requirement for T-levels—there was an exit requirement. Someone could start their T-level without any GCSEs at all, but up until Second Reading it was not possible for them to get their T-level certificate unless they had by that stage passed their English and maths. They could have spent their education at 16 to 19 getting their English and maths; they would have it at the end. That is no longer the case. In the same way as a person does not need to have GCSEs in order to do A-levels, they no longer need to have GCSEs to do T-levels. We obviously encourage all students to improve their English and maths at 16 to 19 years old.
Mr Perkins
We all encourage them, absolutely. I am interested in what the Minister says. I had the impression that a GCSE in maths and English was being used as an entry-level requirement, but I hear the Minister’s point, and if institutions were to take a different approach, I dare say I would find out about them. I appreciate the Minister’s comments.
Matt Western
So the point would be, as the Minister just described, that someone could have been very good at the T-level subject that they had chosen to do, but unless they got through—okay, the Government have changed their position just recently; whether they hold to that decision long term, we do not know—they would not get that qualification, even if they retook English and maths countless times. They may have spent years trying to get it, and they would still be a failure.
Mr Perkins
As I understand it—from what the Minister said, and from my understanding—it was previously an exit-level requirement. We were arguing against that for some time and we are glad that we have managed to persuade the Government of that argument. The important point here is that the Government are learning, visibly and in plain sight, but they have already made the decision on what the conclusions are going to be, while they are still working out what they are doing with the qualification that is working.
It is essential that Ministers get this right, to ensure that T-levels enjoy the confidence of employers, FE professionals and young people and their families. The amendment would offer oversight and ensure that the quality and standards of T-levels are assessed thoroughly, and that conclusions are drawn about any improvements or observations made in that review. It is absolutely fundamental that the Government should review after they have established what the T-level students have done, as things settle down. Qualifications originally planned to be T-levels are still being cancelled. We may well find in a year’s time that further qualifications have not had enough take-up and they also start being cancelled. Let us see what is happening before any decisions are taken to defund alternative qualifications.
Alex Burghart
I do not wish us to keep treading over the same ground. I am very pleased to hear of the many happy students at Derby College, and that they are enjoying their courses. The key question before us is whether we want a system at level 3 that prioritises qualifications designed by employers and that offer a substantial element of work experience. I think we do. It is good for students, good for employers and good for the economy at large. We are designing a system of technical education, whereby a lot of students will go into level 3 technical and do T-levels. They will progress to apprenticeships and to work; some will progress to university. We will also have students at 16 to 19 who do level 2 and go into apprenticeships or traineeships, or work. There will be routes for everyone at 16 to 19 in our reformed system, but everyone will ultimately be doing a qualification that was designed with employers in the room, and many people will be doing a qualification with a serious workplace element.
We are advised to be cautious and careful, and I understand that; these are big reforms. Ten years have passed since we started this process, and it is five years since the Sainsbury review. By the time the first qualifications are defunded, four years will have passed.
Alex Burghart
Sorry, I have finished.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Functions of the Institute: availability of qualifications outside England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause is an important first step in allowing qualifications such as T-levels to be made available outside England by the relevant bodies. To date, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has not collaborated with bodies outside England for that purpose. The clause makes the power explicit.
We know that many qualifications taken in England are also taken by students elsewhere, both in the other nations of the UK and beyond. Those arrangements will remain unchanged for many qualifications. However, there are some qualifications for which the institute owns the intellectual property, such as those forming part of T-levels. If other nations decide that they want to offer T-levels, the clause would allow the institute to engage with relevant bodies, such as regulators or education authorities, as appropriate. That engagement would enable all parties to work together to consider the arrangements that might be needed for programmes of education such as T-levels to be taken by students outside England.
Hon. Members
Hear, hear.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Technical education qualifications: co-operation between the Institute and Ofqual
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause recognises and supports effective joint working between Ofqual and the institute. Under existing legislation, the two bodies share statutory responsibility for oversight of technical education qualifications. Their respective functions and professional expertise are vital in safeguarding the credibility and integrity of technical qualifications. In particular, the institute ensures that qualifications are relevant to employers and deliver the skills they need, while Ofqual’s regulatory role is vital to maintain educational standards and the consistency of technical qualifications.
Despite the close relationship between the two roles, the two strands of existing legislation governing them are currently separate. The clause fills the gap by reinforcing the co-operation that is necessary between the two bodies to ensure that they can each perform their respective functions effectively. The two bodies already work together. They have developed an administrative framework for co-operation. The clause, together with clause 10, will align the legislation with key elements of the framework that they have agreed. Clause 9 writes mutual co-operation clearly into their respective statutory remits, as well as their working relationship. The clause also empowers each of the two bodies to provide advice and assistance to the other and ensures that each will have regard to such advice. These provisions will reinforce the long-term stability of their relationship. In particular, they will reduce the potential for the two organisations’ priorities, systems and processes to drift apart over time.
By working together effectively, the two bodies will minimise the scope for confusing, duplicated and overlapping processes. That will support the setting of clear, demanding quality standards for the qualifications. It will minimise the potential for confusion and unnecessary bureaucracy that could burden awarding bodies if Ofqual and the institute do not co-ordinate their requirements, systems and processes.
Mr Perkins
Throughout the Bill we have been calling for greater clarity and understanding of the roles of various operators within the sector, so we are pleased to see that that is the case with clause 9.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Application of accreditation requirement in relation to technical education qualifications
Mr Perkins
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 10, page 14, line 17, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would ensure Ofqual remains able to make a determination under subsection (1) in relation to accreditation requirements relating to approved technical education qualifications.
Amendment 49 is brief and would ensure that Ofqual remains able to make a determination under section 138(1) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 in relation to accreditation requirements relating to approved technical education qualifications. The Bill hugely centralises power in the Secretary of State’s hands, and it is important that an independent organisation can ensure that our technical education framework remains based on evidence and academic excellence, rather than on political priorities. For that reason, we would look to leave out paragraph (a) and ensure that Ofqual remains able to make such determinations.
Alex Burghart
The amendment aims to retain Ofqual’s power to accredit technical education qualifications that are also subject to the institute’s approval processes. These two functions are very similar, so the amendment would undermine the intention to clarify the statutory approval process for technical qualifications.
By creating a single approval gateway managed by the institute, the Bill removes duplication in the processes for these qualifications and so ensures that the system is as efficient as possible. If we were to accept the amendment, awarding organisations might be subjected to two overlapping and very similar approval processes. The mutual co-operation requirements of clause 9 ensure that although Ofqual cannot decide to accredit technical qualifications, it will continue to play a key role in their approval. Ofqual will continue to exercise its regulatory functions in live delivery.
I should draw the Committee’s attention to the comment by Jo Saxton, the Chief Inspector of Ofqual:
“The Skills Bill heralds the acceleration of a unified system of technical qualifications based on employer-led standards, in which Ofqual has a pivotal role, providing students and apprentices with high quality qualifications…The Bill cements our close working relationship with the Institute, drawing on the strengths and expertise of both organisations, with our statutory regulation of technical qualifications continuing to underpin this system”.
I think we can take it from that comment that Ofqual is very happy with the Bill as it is drafted.
It is more appropriate that the institute leads on the approval process, because its work is essential in ensuring that both the content and the outcomes of technical qualifications are aligned to the skills that employers have told us they need.
Mr Perkins
I heard what the Minister said. This was a probing amendment to try to understand a little more about how Ofqual’s role would operate in the future. However, having heard what the Minister has had to say, I beg to task leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 10 is needed in addition to clause 9 in order to clarify the roles of the institute and Ofqual in the approval of technical education qualifications. Under the existing legislation and the provisions of the Bill, the institute has specific responsibility to ensure that technical qualifications meet the skills needs of employers and different employment sectors. In parallel, Ofqual has the discretion to decide that individual types and classes of qualification should be subject to an accreditation requirement before they can be taught in schools and colleges. The purpose of the two processes is similar—to ensure that qualifications meet a high-quality bar before they enter the market. Therefore, the current legislation means that individual technical qualifications could be subject to two similar and unhelpfully overlapping approval processes. That would be unnecessary double regulation.
Clause 10 will remove the potential for overlap and duplication by creating a single approval gateway for all technical qualifications. Taken together with the mutual co-operation provisions in clause 9, it enables the two bodies to work together to provide a clear single approval pathway for technical education qualifications. It will remove the potential for duplication and additional bureaucracy both for the two bodies themselves and for the awarding organisations whose qualifications are subject to approval.
Mr Perkins
Given the concerns that we have raised with regard to the creation of the division between Ofqual and the institute, and the fear that that may lead to a two-tier approach and a sense that the investigations into academic qualifications that are seen with A-levels and other qualifications under Ofqual are different from those under the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and the technical qualifications, this is an issue that the Government need to be very careful about in future. They should ensure that there is real confidence that the technical qualifications are robust and subject to the same processes, and the same checks and balances, as other qualifications.
That is the key point that we make to the Government. We do not intend to oppose clause 10 stand part, but we seek reassurances that there will not be too much of a sense that the different pathways are of different merit.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Information sharing in relation to technical education qualifications
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause supports a critical aspect of the joint working needed to ensure that the whole technical education system works together to deliver the skills that employers need. It does so by ensuring that Ofqual can exchange information with the other bodies that have important roles in this framework. Under existing legislation, the institute can exchange information with other bodies to support its own functions and those of the other body involved. At present, similar powers do not apply to Ofqual. Ofqual’s explicit information-sharing power allows it to share information only with other qualifications regulators in the UK to enable or facilitate the performance of the qualifications functions of that regulator. There is no explicit function allowing it to share information to support the functions of other types of bodies.
Mr Perkins
Could the Minister clarify a little more the kinds of information that he anticipates will be relevant under this clause?
Alex Burghart
It is part of that long day you were talking about, Mr Efford. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that whatever information the institute and Ofqual want to share with each other, they can. It is open-ended, and is there to serve their purposes.
Alex Burghart
I will make some progress. The clause tackles that limitation by providing Ofqual with information-sharing powers in relation to technical education qualifications that correspond with those that already apply to the institute. Specifically, the clause enables each organisation to share information either to support its own functions, or to help other bodies in their own roles. For example, it would allow Ofqual to share information that it already gathers from awarding body organisations with other bodies, such as the institute, to avoid other bodies needing to duplicate data-gathering exercises. That approach of “collect once, use multiple times” would help reduce administrative load. Hopefully, that answers the question that the hon. Member for Chesterfield asked.
The clause plays an important role in supporting coherent, efficient joint working between Ofqual and other relevant bodies, and will help to secure high quality across the technical education system as a whole.
Mr Perkins
There are always concerns when it comes to this Government and information sharing. There have been many examples in which there has been real concern about the approach that the Government have taken to this sort of thing, which is why I was asking about the scope of these powers. We entirely understand sharing information about specific qualifications, but if it gets more granular than that—if it gets more into the area of personal data—there will be real concern. At future stages of the Bill’s passage it would be good to get a more detailed understanding of precisely what information the Government are seeking powers to share. Notwithstanding that, on the basis that these information-sharing powers mirror the current arrangements with regard to the institute, we do not intend to oppose clause stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Technical education qualifications: minor and consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause sets out minor and consequential amendments to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 and other legislation as a consequence of the other provisions contained in chapter 2 of the Bill. That includes amendments that result from extending the powers of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education such that it will be able to approve a wider range of technical qualifications. These amendments are necessary to ensure that the statute operates effectively.
Mr Perkins
They certainly are.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Renumbering of provisions relating to technical education qualifications
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause sets out changes to the numbering of existing sections to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, allowing for new and existing provisions to be sequenced and numbered in a logical manner. This is a technical but necessary consequential change to the legislation, resulting from other provisions in this chapter of the Bill.
The Chair
We are all grateful for that clarification.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Michael Tomlinson.)
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tokyo Nutrition for Growth Summit
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
I remind Members that the House authorities request people to wear face coverings, except when they are speaking in the debate. I am also asked to remind Members to have a covid lateral flow test twice weekly if coming on to the parliamentary estate—that may be done either at the testing centre on the estate or at home—and to space yourselves out. Clearly, we have spaced ourselves out nicely already.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 2021 Tokyo Nutrition for Growth summit.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for affording me the opportunity to propose the motion.
It is almost exactly a year since we last gathered in Westminster Hall to debate the role of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in tackling global malnutrition. At the time, I, the all-party parliamentary group on Nutrition for Growth—which I co-chair with Lord Collins of Highbury—and the Members present at the debate urged the FCDO to make an early Nutrition for Growth commitment at an event co-hosted by the Governments of Canada and Bangladesh. Indeed, the UK was represented at that event. Of course, it took place because the Nutrition for Growth summit had been postponed for a year because of covid. The summit is finally scheduled to happen in just a few days.
On 7 and 8 December, the Government of Japan will convene Governments, philanthropists, non-governmental organisations and business leaders in an online summit to commit finances and to make policy changes that will help to end malnutrition. It will be the fourth Nutrition for Growth summit since the initiative was launched by David Cameron and the UK Government in 2013. The focus of the Nutrition for Growth APPG had obviously been on the Tokyo summit, but the delay because of covid has allowed us to continue to press the issue at every parliamentary opportunity. I thank our secretariat, Results UK, and Tom Guha in particular, for their help and support in doing so.
I also took the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister last week to discuss the issues and to reaffirm the prime ministerial support that Nutrition for Growth has always enjoyed. I know, therefore, that he will be taking a significant interest in the summit and its outcome, and he wants to see the continuation of the global leadership that the UK has demonstrated to date.
Before I get on to the summit itself, I will lay out why malnutrition is a problem that demands our urgent attention. I will start with one very grim statistic: in 2019, more than 5 million children under five died. Malnutrition was linked to 45% of those deaths. That is a staggering number, and the reason for it is that malnutrition during critical periods of growth—for example, during pregnancy or the early years—stunts the growth of the immune system, making children more likely both to get ill and to die as a result.
The problem does not stop there. In 2020, 149 million children worldwide suffered chronic health conditions due to stunted growth. That number is more than double the population size of the UK. In some regions, such as central Africa, stunting affects 40% of all children. Malnutrition not only has dire health consequences, but malnourished children are 13% less likely to be in the correct school year for their age. Moreover, the World Bank estimates that malnutrition costs some countries up to 11% of GDP annually through productivity losses and healthcare costs.
Nutrition is a foundational investment in people. It prevents ill health, rather than treating it, it ensures that children learn at school rather than simply attend, and it sets children up to realise their future potential in adult life. It is for this reason that Nobel economists describe nutrition as
“the most effective development investment that could be made, with massive benefits for a tiny price-tag.”
Whatever the Government’s position on the overseas aid budget, I am sure that we all agree that taxpayers’ money should be spent as impactfully as possible. Therefore, we must prioritise nutrition and use summits such as Nutrition for Growth to co-ordinate our approach with other countries to maximise its impact even further.
There is some good news. Although the problem of malnutrition is all too prevalent, the number of under-five deaths worldwide has more than halved since 1990 and the number of stunted children has decreased by 11% in the past 20 years, from 203 million to 149 million. The figure is enormous, but that is still a monumental achievement that shows that action and global co-operation to address malnutrition have worked.
Progress is now under threat. Covid has closed health centres, and pushed food prices up and wages down. As a result, it is predicted that an additional 283,000 children under five will die from malnutrition between 2020 and 2022, which is a shocking equivalent to 225 more children dying every day. In the same period, it is predicted that an additional 3.6 million children will become stunted.
We cannot stand by as years of progress unravel in this way. I have the following calls on the Minister today. Will she confirm that the UK Government will make a pledge at the Nutrition for Growth summit next week? Will the UK Government commit to reach 50 million women, adolescent girls and children with high-impact nutrition interventions by 2025, which would be consistent with the commitment they gave at the last Nutrition for Growth summit? Will she ensure that her Department has the funding required to meet that target? NGOs estimate that roughly £120 million per year is required for nutrition-specific programmes, but that accounts for just 1% of official development assistance. Will the FCDO increase the impact of other UK aid spending by adding nutrition objectives to £680 million of programming in other areas?
That is not an ask for new money; it is about targeting other programmes, such as agricultural or social protection schemes, on areas with a high prevalence of malnutrition. Will the Government and the FCDO commit to implement the OECD’s policy marker for nutrition at programme design phase, to ensure that the Minister’s Department proactively considers how nutrition can be woven into programmes? These are not just arbitrary requests or calls for more money. Each commitment would make a real difference to the lives of millions of malnourished women, children and adolescent girls.
To conclude, let me give just one example of the difference that such commitments can make, by speaking about Halima. Halima was 17 months old when she was admitted to hospital in Mogadishu. She was dangerously underweight and had peeling skin, swollen limbs and brittle hair. As a result of UK funding, Halima was given ready-to-use therapeutic food at the hospital, and her mother, Fatuma, was supported with a cash transfer scheme that enabled her to provide her daughter with a healthy, balanced diet. I am sure we are all pleased to know that after five months, Halima was bouncy, bubbly and healthy. As a direct result of decisions made in this place and by the UK Government, Halima survived.
Let us grasp the opportunity that the Nutrition for Growth summit next week affords, to ensure that there are more positive outcomes like Halima’s. I look forward to the debate and to the Minister’s positive response.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this debate on the very important Nutrition for Growth summit in Tokyo next week, and for such a thoughtful opening speech.
Since I have been chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the human microbiome, I have been furthering my knowledge about the fundamental role that diet plays in everyone’s health and its ability to change the gut microbiome for better or worse. I raise the issue of the gut microbiome because it plays a crucial role in nutritional uptake. The composition of the bacteria in the gut is implicated in a vast array of illnesses, conditions and infections that affect physical and mental health. Around 70% of the immune system is derived from the gut microbiome, so the stronger it is, the stronger our immune system and overall resilience—that is particularly pertinent in this time of covid-19.
The remarkable thing about our gut microbiome is that, unlike our genetics, it can be altered throughout our lives—deliberately, and for the better—most easily by the foods we choose to eat, among other things. Our gut microbiome needs to have many of the positive types of bacteria that are beneficial to health, which are collectively called probiotics. We can ingest those bacteria in the food we eat, especially fermented foods such as live yoghurts, and in any approved supplements that we may take. The positive bacteria then need food of their own so that they can produce the compounds that support our health and resilience. One of the reasons we are encouraged to eat a wide variety of plant foods is that they feed the positive bacteria that we all need to make for our health to be more robust, with better resistance to infection. Food that targets specific types of positive bacteria can be taken in the form of supplements called prebiotics.
At a recent meeting of the APPG on the human microbiome, we had a talk by Professor Gregor Reid of Western University in London, Ontario, in Canada. He spoke about a truly transformative programme that is already operational in Africa, called Fermented Food for Life, which is pertinent to the ambitions of the summit. The programme provides affordable, good-tasting foods that improve the gut microbiome, nutritional intake and health. It uses local people, local resources and a very simple production method that ferments milk, fruits, cereals and vegetables. It starts with an affordable sachet containing 1 gram of two food-grade beneficial bacteria that can produce 100 litres of probiotic fermented food. A cow or goat will then provide milk that is fermented with the bacteria in order to make yoghurt. Fermented fruit juices, vegetables and cereals, all of which are highly nutritious, can also be made. By making such foods with some of those types of probiotic bacteria, we are adding to the health-promoting properties of these organisms.
Scientists in Canada and the Netherlands have shown that communities in Africa can purchase the sachets and minimal equipment to produce those health-promoting probiotic fermented foods—supplemented if desired with local moringa leaves, which are considered to be nutritional treasures in themselves—and create a value chain that brings economic and health gains.
Research has shown that probiotic yoghurts can confer health benefits such as preventing and treating gastrointestinal infections, increasing birth weight in babies and improving the mother’s health, helping to remove toxins such as mercury from the body, strengthening the immune system, and improving general health and nutrition. Such effects are particularly pronounced in areas with high rates of malnutrition and for individuals who are immunocompromised. Many peer-reviewed research papers back that up.
There are now hundreds of yoghurt kitchens in east Africa, run by women affectionately known as yoghurt mamas. In 2019, the programme reached some 260,000 consumers. As well as the production, there is a distribution network providing employment. By improving the microbiome, the Fermented Food for Life programme is improving nutritional uptake and the health of people in low-income African countries. If such a programme can work in Africa, it can work across the world. It is easily replicable, low cost, sustainable, uses local resources and contributes to meaningful employment and community health.
With a little external investment, many more yoghurt kitchens can be set up. There is a model to follow, and we know it works. The people behind the programme know that it can be transferred to other countries where malnutrition is prevalent—it could even be transferred to Britain and other developed countries. When we talk about malnutrition, we have to link it to poverty, unemployment, low levels of education or lack of accessibility to good, affordable food. We all know that those factors affect regions in our own country.
If such a programme can work in Africa, it can work across the world. Micro-enterprises anywhere in the world can follow the same model as in Africa to produce probiotic fermented foods to improve health outcomes through the gut microbiome. These cost-effective solutions have been shown to work, and this sustainable programme of recognising the gut microbiome as an integral element of human health fits perfectly with the three key pillars of the Nutrition for Growth summit: health, food and resilience.
I know that the Government are considering whether to renew their commitment to reach 50 million people with nutrition interventions by 2025 at the summit next week, as recommended by the International Coalition for Advocacy on Nutrition, which includes Save the Children, UNICEF and other important non-governmental organisations. Now that the spending review is over, perhaps the Minister could update us on the progress of that decision. As part of such a renewed commitment to the Nutrition for Growth summit, would the Government explore supporting programmes like the one I have described?
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this debate, which is timely given the summit next week, and because yesterday was World AIDS Day, and nutrition is crucial in helping people infected with HIV/AIDS—as well as those with covid and many other diseases, as we have heard.
I am struck by the link between this debate and one that we had on Tuesday in Westminster Hall on the wellbeing economy approach to measuring success and what matters. That debate was particularly about our response to climate change, but it is at the heart of the issue of nutrition for growth as well.
Katherine Trebeck, a constituent of mine, is a leading thinker on wellbeing economics. She talks about how we can reframe the kind of goals we want to achieve and the measures that we make of society. One of her cornerstone indicators is how many girls in a country cycle to school. That can be applied in the United Kingdom and in sub-Saharan Africa. A range of things have to come together to increase that number, and the benefits of that increase are so important for so many other things across society.
Nutrition is absolutely at the core of that. Any of us who wants to expend energy—in fighting disease, paying attention in class, working in heavy industry or talking in Westminster Hall—has to be adequately fed. We recognise that in our country. One of the biggest political debates during the covid crisis was free school meals. The Government had to respond to the national outcry led by Marcus Rashford, who knows from experience that sustenance and adequate nutrition are the foundation of everything a person might want to do in daily life. The series of Nutrition for Growth summits are recognition of the centrality of good nutrition to human development. The summit in a couple of weeks will build on previous summits. We recognise that they were started under the Conservative Government of David Cameron, but of course that Government reached the 0.7% target and increased the amount of money that the UK was spending on international development. I will come back to that, because sadly that is not what this Conservative Government are doing.
Nutrition is the underlying driver of, and essential to meeting, 12 of the 17 sustainable development goals, and it is absolutely crucial to the second sustainable development goal of ending hunger in all its forms by 2030, which is not very far away at all. Again, I pay tribute to David Cameron’s work to mobilise global opinion behind the SDGs. People questioned whether 17 SDGs was enough or too many. It is the right number, because those were identified as the goals that we need to meet in order to build a more sustainable and just world for everybody.
The fact that the goal on hunger is the second SDG is recognition of how important it is to achieving everything else that we want to achieve. I pay tribute to the work of the University of Nottingham, and particularly Professor Nicola Pitchford; at a recent meeting of all-party parliamentary groups, they gave a presentation on a very impressive study they are doing in Malawi to monitor, prove and demonstrate the significance of nutrition for all the other wellbeing indicators. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale is vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Malawi, and we share a deep interest in that country. That study will use big data from across the whole country; 4,500 mother and infant pairs will be studied over the long term to see what difference different kinds of intervention can make. Crucial to that will, of course, be the kind of food and the adequacy of the nutrition that they are able to access.
The latest FCDO annual report states that Malawi is to experience a 50% cut in the aid it receives from the United Kingdom. This has to be addressed. I know it is uncomfortable. Ministers do not like it, and Conservative Back Benchers do not like it very much either, but the reality is that the United Kingdom is set to make one of the biggest cuts to its overseas nutrition work in history. The aid budget as a whole faces a cut of roughly a third, and aid for nutrition is set to be slashed by 70%. That is the finding of the International Coalition for Advocacy on Nutrition, which produced a through report with some important recommendations, some of which the right hon. Gentleman echoed.
The difficulty, which we were warned of when the cuts came forward, is that they are not being applied equally across the board. It is almost impossible to apply them equally across the board, so the Government are having to pick and choose between priorities, whether that is priority issues or priority countries. As soon as they do that, other projects and programmes that have been supported by the Department for International Development and the FCDO suffer disproportionately.
The reality of the cuts is that the money will not turn back on like a tap in a couple of years’ time when the Chancellor says, “We’re going to get back to 0.7%.” That will be of no use to programmes that are closing now, for experience that is being lost now, to staff who are moving to other projects or moving elsewhere, and for the progress that has been made with cohorts who are not receiving inputs now. That will have a long-term consequence, even if the budget is brought back up to 0.7% in a couple of years’ time—and we will wait to see whether that is what happens. I have to contrast that with what the Scottish Government are doing. They have increased their international development fund, despite the pressures on their budget as a whole. When Scotland becomes an independent country, we absolutely want to meet 0.7%. We have recently offered £250,000 to help with the hunger crisis in Sudan, and another £250,000 to Afghanistan because of the approaching catastrophic winter famine.
As the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) said, this issue affects countries all around the world. We are particularly focused, in the summit and in the debate, on Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and developing countries in the least developed category, but the issue affects so many people. As I said at the start, it affects us here at home as well. That is why I warmly welcome the Scottish Government’s commitments on free school meals. Over many years now, that has been rolled out to increasing numbers of primary school children. The Scottish Government are going further, faster, because they recognise the difference that it makes to the wellbeing of children, their educational opportunities and closing the attainment gap. If it is good enough for us here in Scotland and the United Kingdom, it should be good enough for all the countries that we work with around the world.
I hope that the Minister will recognise the foundational importance of nutrition for all the other development goals that we aspire to reach, and that the UK Government will find a way to show leadership when it comes to requests made by stakeholder groups and by the Members in today’s debate. If we do not do that, it will put all the other goals at risk, because of the foundational nature of this topic.
I know things are difficult for the Minister; first of all, half the ministerial team are off because of various commitments and self-isolation. They have been working very hard this week, between Westminster Hall and the Chamber. Also, it is difficult because it is an uncomfortable decision that has been made. However, we have to be honest about the reality of the impact of the cuts. We need to work together in order to find the best way to act to make the best of the situation, and to use the resources as effectively as possible, so that they make as big a difference as possible.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
I look forward to contributing under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this timely debate, and on his brilliant contribution.
As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on population, development and reproductive health, and as a member of the Select Committee on International Development, I have always had a passion for this subject. I will join my colleagues next week at the summit online; we will be there from the IDC.
Next week, this Government have the opportunity to continue the work that they have done promoting good nutrition. In 2013, this Government led the world at the first Nutrition for Growth summit, and we can do it again. Truly it is an opportunity to fundamentally change the lives of the poorest in the world for the better. This is possibly the most important time to tackle malnutrition since the 1983 to 1985 famine in Ethiopia.
Covid-19 has ripped through the most deprived parts of the world in ways inconceivable to us. It has left swathes of already vulnerable children on the very edge of starvation. This year, 225 more children will die every day because of malnutrition. An additional 3.6 million children are predicted to become stunted, and 13.6 million children are predicted to become wasted by 2022 because of malnutrition arising from covid-19. This is not intangible. It is real children whose lives are blighted.
Nutrition is the single simplest, most effective way to improve lives across the globe, yet this year we are turning our backs on the malnourished. This Christmas— supposedly a time of good will—while the aid budget as a whole is facing a cut of roughly a third, ODA for nutrition is set to be slashed by 70%, despite the relative affordability of nutrition, the efficiency of spending it represents, and the impact it has. Nutrition cuts across every single target the FCDO has. It meets targets and it changes lives. Money spent on nutrition delivers an average return of 16 times the investment and supports future generations; it does not have a one-off impact.
With this in mind, and with the legacy of the first Nutrition for Growth summit as a role model, I hope the Minister will answer the following questions. There might be some repetition of other Members’ suggestions; I tried to cut it out, but then I thought, “I must add my voice to theirs, and endorse and support what they said.” Will the Minister attend the Nutrition for Growth summit, make an ambitious pledge there, and commit to renewing the commitment to reaching 50 million children, women and adolescent girls with nutrition programmes by 2025? Will the Minister commit to adding nutrition indicators to roughly £680 million of aid in other areas, to maximise the effectiveness of the aid budget? What work is the Minister’s Department doing to ensure that other Government Departments and other Governments around the world take nutrition seriously? Finally, will she commit to reading the International Coalition for Advocacy on Nutrition’s latest document, “Time for Action”, and respond to its recommendations?
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) not only for securing this debate, but for making very eloquent and powerful arguments in the run-up to the Tokyo Nutrition for Growth summit next week. I thank all Members who have spoken. It seems that we are breaking out into consensus, and I hope to hear a consensual reply from the Minister.
For many of us, our first and fundamental understanding of international development, and our moral obligation as global citizens to provide assistance to the poorest and most vulnerable in the world, will have been shaped by stories and images of children who did not have the well-nourished, healthy life that we took for granted. We see pleas, both on television and in newspapers, almost every day for support from our citizens for those most in need. Those of us old enough remember the horrific images from the mid-1980s of many children starving to death, which led to an international outcry. We all watched the Band Aid concert, which raised hundreds of millions worldwide to help people in Ethiopia.
The simple fact is that a healthy diet is a fundamental human need—in fact, it should be a right. That is something even the youngest child can understand, but as we debate this issue today, halfway through the United Nations decade of action on nutrition, the UN has sombrely concluded that the world is not on track to achieve sustainable development goal 2, which is zero hunger by 2030, or on track to meet global nutrition targets. Sadly, it is not on track to meet some of the other sustainable development goals, either.
In fact, the number of undernourished people has increased by over 50%, from 633 million to 957 million—almost a billion—in the past three years alone. Pause to consider that number for a second: that is one in seven people on Earth. Let us be in no doubt: this is a global crisis. That increase should shame us all, and today this Chamber is clearly sending the Government the message that they must reaffirm their commitment to global nutrition—not through vague platitudes from the Minister at the end of this debate, but through concrete and evidenced action at next week’s summit.
Nutrition has a fundamental impact on the life chances of a child, even before they are born. We all know that well-nourished women have safer pregnancies and deliver healthier babies, yet one third of women of reproductive age suffer from anaemia—the leading cause of complication in pregnancy and childbirth—which increases the likelihood of miscarriage, stillbirth, low birth weight and maternal mortality. Sadly, Governments are not on track to reach the World Health Organisation target of reducing anaemia in women by 50% by 2025, despite the fact that providing iron supplements costs less than $5 per woman. Well-nourished infants and children are healthier and have stronger immune systems, making them more able to resist infection and disease. Without sufficient nutrition, children, particularly those under the age of two, are at high risk of wasting, which causes them to be too thin and to have weak immune systems. That results in development delays, disease and, ultimately, death. Tragically, as was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, malnutrition is still linked to 45% of all under-five child deaths.
Similarly, in 2019, 144 million children under the age of five were affected by stunting—being too short for their age. They, too, are more susceptible to disease and infection, and are unlikely to develop their full cognitive potential. Adults who are stunted earn about 20% less than their peers, and mothers who are undernourished are more likely to have children who are subsequently stunted, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and undernutrition. If there is a point to be made here about lifting people out of poverty around the world, it is this: we are talking about a simple and affordable investment that will ensure that nations around the world can grow out of a situation in which they are regularly in need of international development. That argument, I would think, would work for even the most libertarian Conservatives in this Government.
Furthermore, good nutrition is critical to brain development and educational achievement. Well-nourished schoolchildren are more likely to stay in school, but malnourished children are, at age eight, 20% less likely to be able to read simple sentences and 13% less likely to be in the correct school year for their age. Once again, if trade is to be a key part of our development work—which I fully support—we need to make sure that young people have good access to health and education. Food will be a key part of that. Only then will they be able to trade their way out of their current situation and be prosperous like those in other nations in the western world.
Ensuring good nutrition is therefore critical to preventing disease, reducing unnecessary death, and enabling people to reach their full potential. Nutrition is recognised by Nobel economists as the most effective development intervention. That makes it all the more regrettable that it has been neglected, and that malnutrition is on the rise. It is therefore fundamentally vital—I cannot emphasise this enough—that the UK Government recommit to reaching over 50 million children, women, and adolescent girls with nutrition-relevant programmes by 2025. Those in this Chamber have said that with one voice. The Department for International Development was able to exceed that commitment between 2015 and 2020, so there should be no reason why the FCDO could not do likewise.
Covid-19 has had a devastating impact on global nutrition, with rates of malnutrition soaring due to the pandemic. The disruption to economic, health, development and educational systems has meant that livelihoods have become more fragile, and has exacerbated existing inequalities. How can someone provide a broad range of food for their family when lockdowns and economic instability have meant that they have lost their job and income? How can they receive nutritional supplements when their country’s healthcare system is overwhelmed with covid patients, or when aid workers cannot reach them because of border closures? How can they receive their one healthy meal a day when the school that they go to is closed?
The impact has been catastrophic. Between 2020 and 2022, an additional 3.6 million children are predicted to become stunted, and 13.6 million children are predicted to become wasted. This will cause over a quarter of a million more children under five to die from malnutrition. That is 225 children dying every single day—these could be our children. Will the Minister commit today to conducting an impact assessment on how covid-19 has affected, and will continue to affect, rates of malnutrition in FCDO partner countries?
Nutrition is even more important in the context of covid-19, as good nutrition is essential to maintaining a strong immune system, as was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). Conversely, malnutrition is the leading cause of ill health and death worldwide, increasing the risk of developing severe covid symptoms, and therefore possibly reducing the efficacy of covid vaccines. The impact of covid should have made the UK’s investment in nutrition more important, not less—the impact of covid should have made all of the UK’s aid spending more important.
However, what did we see from this UK Government in response? We saw the very opposite. We saw the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Cabinet abandon their obligation to leave no one behind, abandon any notion of building back better, and abandon the UK’s role as a leader—let us be clear—in international development by reneging on the cross-party manifesto commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on ODA. The term “global Britain” would be funny if it was not so tragic.
Rather than step up to help the world’s poorest and most vulnerable when they needed it the most, the Government stepped away and made an ideologically motivated death-sentence cut. The pandemic forced hundreds of millions of people into hunger and malnutrition, but at a time when people needed strong immunity more than ever, UK aid for nutrition-specific programmes plummeted by—wait for it—70%, from £118 million in 2018 to just £37 million this year. Despite nutrition being central to the FCDO’s development priorities, less than 1% of the UK budget is spent on nutrition-specific programmes. Withdrawing support from these life-saving nutrition programmes severely compromises the effectiveness of UK aid, including in priority areas such as covid, global health security and, fundamentally, girls’ education. Studies have repeatedly demonstrated the importance of good nutrition for human immunity and vaccine efficacy. Well-nourished girls are more likely to stay in school, succeed in their studies and delay their first pregnancy.
The tragedy of the “global Britain” approach is that the Government knew that they would be undermining this work. Their own equalities assessment concluded that these cuts would negatively impact girls’ education, harm wider efforts to advance gender equality, disrupt disability-inclusive development and diminish the ability to reach those furthest behind. It was not done without knowledge in advance. Nevertheless, they pressed ahead with this callous cut regardless. Let us be clear that these cuts have consequences: they kill. Therefore, this UK Government have blood on their dirty little hands.
I will demonstrate an example of this. In evidence given to the International Development Committee, of which I am a member, along with my colleague from the Labour party, the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), witnesses from UNICEF spoke of their UK aid-funded nutrition programme in South Sudan, which was cut this year by 75%, from £20 million to £5 million. What does that mean on the ground? It means that an additional 73,000 children with severe wasting may not be reached and now face the highest risk of death. These cuts stand in stark contrast with every other G7 country, which have increased their aid contributions over the past year. It is no wonder that they have done this; we have been living through covid and we all know what that has meant. It is something that every country on earth is experiencing—we are not unique. It is the Scottish Government who have pledged to increase their international development fund by 50%. Let me be crystal clear: Scotland wants no part of the UK Government’s abdication of responsibility, and sees international development very differently.
This Conservative Government have abandoned the UK’s role as leader in international development in favour of following the manifesto commitments of the UK Independence party and the Brexit party. The upcoming Nutrition for Growth summit cannot fall short in the same way that the Education for Development summit did this summer. Rose Caldwell, chief executive of Plan International UK, said that the UK had failed in its duty as co-host after the summit failed to reach its target by a staggering $1 billion.
As the host of the original Nutrition for Growth summit in 2013, which was supported by cross-party unanimity when David Cameron brought it forward, the UK should have tremendous convening power. If the UK Government wish to restore their credibility on the world’s stage in any shape or form, they must deliver a strong pledge next week to catalyse commitments from other donors. It is essential that the UK increases aid for nutrition-specific programmes and, at the very least, returns to the original 2015-20 levels and commits the necessary £120 million per year over the next five years.
The Nutrition for Growth summit is a rare opportunity for ambitious change. It is not too late. The UK Government, and Governments across the world, cannot let down those most in need yet again.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this timely debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) for all the work that she does in her APPG. I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), and the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), who is the Front-Bench spokesperson for his party.
I will perhaps repeat some of the points that my colleagues have made, but this issue is so important that they need to be repeated again and again. As has been said, hunger and malnutrition are one of the world’s most serious but least addressed development challenges. Although the proportion and absolute number of chronically undernourished people has declined worldwide, the progress has been uneven among developing countries. The challenge we face in the international community is to build on that progress and accelerate the processes to improve nutrition.
Malnutrition affects lifelong development and contributes to half of all child deaths. Millions of children around the world are affected by the life-limiting outcomes of poor nutrition. In many developing countries, only one third of children under two are fed what they need for healthy growth; no progress has been made on improving their nutrition over the past decade.
A recent UNICEF report found that a combination of crises, from covid-19 to conflict and climate breakdown, had stunted progress on children’s nutrition in 91 countries. The report sets out that half of children aged from six to 23 months across a range of developing countries were not fed the minimum number of daily meals, and even fewer had a diverse diet that met minimum requirements.
Until recently, the Government regularly reminded us of their objective to ensure
“12 years of quality education for all girls”
—a very noble aim. However, such objectives cannot be met unless we also support nutrition. Nutrition has implications for a child’s employment prospects and therefore the economic success of their country. Good nutrition relies on food and agricultural systems that deliver healthy and diverse diets at a cost that people can afford.
It is estimated that undernutrition in childhood reduces an individual’s earning potential by 10% and has the same impact on GDP rates, with a total global economic cost of $3.5 trillion. Progress can only be made through joint global action to build, strengthen and transform food systems, so that children can get the nutrition they need to survive and then thrive. This underlines exactly why we need our Government to tackle this problem and invest in more nutrition.
However, the Government seem to be considering doing the opposite. Earlier this year we discovered that they are planning to spend 70% less on vital nutrition services, by cutting £100 million from the aid budget. They are aware that such a move would leave tens of thousands of children hungry and even at risk of starvation. Is that what we are now coming to? Are we now looking at the near collapse of British help for hungry children in some of the world’s poorest and most dangerous countries, including Yemen, Somalia and Sudan?
Ending preventable child deaths will never be achieved if we ignore the role that prolonged malnutrition plays in a child’s development and future quality of life. It is simply not credible for the Government to claim global leadership in tackling hunger while slashing aid. That amounts to nothing more than a hollow “global Britain” slogan with nothing tangible behind it.
Perhaps what makes this situation most sad and self-defeating is that Britain has been a genuine global leader in this area for the past decade, saving lives and gaining a huge soft power benefit as a result. I implore the Minister to recommit to reaching out to over 50 million children, women and adolescent girls with nutrition-relevant programmes by 2025. That is a target that the Department for International Development made and even exceeded between 2015 and 2020.
We all know that next week the Tokyo Nutrition for Growth summit will take place. The first Nutrition for Growth summit in 2013 was, of course, hosted by the United Kingdom. It mobilised some £17 billion in new investment, with the UK contributing massively to that sum. Since 2013, the number of children whose physical or cognitive growth has been stunted by malnutrition has been reduced by over 13 million.
Despite the progress that I have just mentioned, nutrition remains one of the most pressing issues in global development. If progress is to continue, we must see the UK leading once again in Tokyo by taking steps to ensure that nutrition is embedded within the UK aid’s portfolio and pledging funds that are at least at the same level as those pledged since 2013. Ideally, of course, it would be great to have an uplift.
When the Minister responds to the debate, can she say whether the Government will commit to making such a pledge at Tokyo? Will they commit to fund nutrition-specific services to a level that is roughly equivalent to that between 2015 and 2020, which was about £120 million per year or roughly 1% of the ODA budget? That small increase would reflect inflation, the UK’s economic growth and the global shortfall in funding for nutrition.
Can the Minister also tell us who will represent the United Kingdom at the Tokyo summit? Ensuring that there is high-level ministerial attendance at the summit, drafting ambitious policy commitments, considering a match funding scheme and co-financing and supporting the implementation of countries’ national nutrition plans would all send a strong message that our Government take nutrition seriously.
Nutrition is so paramount in human life that it intersects with almost all aspects of development policy and is therefore fundamental to delivering on our goals. Therefore, I hope that the Minister who attends the Tokyo summit will make a powerful case for the importance of nutrition and address the issues that my parliamentary colleagues and I have raised this afternoon.
The Minister for Asia (Amanda Milling)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Bone. I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing the debate. I know that he tirelessly champions the cause of nutrition—that most basic human need—as chair of the APPG. From the discussion that we have had this afternoon, I know that Members of different parties welcome his commitment to this really important agenda. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), is responsible for global health policy. She would have been delighted to be present but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale suggested, the ministerial team are in quite a few different places this week. My ministerial colleague is currently in the main Chamber for another debate, so it is my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government. As I say, I am grateful to all Members for their contributions.
Six years ago the international community pledged to end malnutrition by 2030. However, despite progress in some areas, we face an ever greater challenge. Malnutrition is increasing, with huge consequences for people, the economy and society, and the pandemic and climate emergency have only made things worse. I hope that the Tokyo Nutrition for Growth summit next week will mark a renewed global effort to prevent malnutrition in all its forms, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is working closely with the Government of Japan to build the foundations for a successful summit.
The UK Government have made a commitment to end preventable deaths of mothers, newborns and children by 2030, and addressing malnutrition is fundamental to this endeavour. Malnutrition lies behind nearly half of all child deaths and one in five maternal deaths. Poor nutrition leaves millions of women and girls suffering from anaemia. Meanwhile, with 2.2 billion overweight people, it is fuelling obesity-related diseases and making people more vulnerable to covid-19.
The Government are determined to ensure that people around the world benefit from improved nutrition. Since 2015, we have supported more than 55 million women, children and girls in this regard. Through our special envoy on famine prevention and humanitarian affairs, we are tackling malnutrition in countries where conflict and covid-19 make our job harder. We will deliver on our financial commitments in the G7 famine compact by the end of the year, and we have announced new funding to address increasing needs.
In Ethiopia, the UK has provided £76 million in humanitarian assistance since the start of the conflict, including for work to support nutrition. In Afghanistan, we are doubling our humanitarian and development assistance, with £50 million committed for life-saving support since the Taliban takeover—again, that includes food assistance. However, this is not just about money. We will also scale up our action to anticipate and avert crises before they happen. That is why our humanitarian funding will do more to integrate food assistance with other support, including for nutrition, health, clean water, hygiene and sanitation. We will focus, as ever, on the most vulnerable, particularly women and girls.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and other Members have called on the Government to make fresh commitments to Nutrition for Growth, including on spending. As Members are well aware, and as has been discussed, the seismic impact of the pandemic forced us to take the tough but necessary decision to reduce our official development assistance temporarily. However, the ODA budget is growing, and the Chancellor confirmed in the recent Budget that we are scheduled to return to spending 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance in 2024-25. We will continue to improve the nutrition of those who need it most, as we will set out in our approach paper on ending preventable deaths, which will be published on 14 December.
Meanwhile, we are working to ensure that our ongoing investments have the greatest possible impact. Our spending on women and girls’ health is designed to achieve World Health Organisation targets, including on reducing anaemia. We are also strengthening food systems so that nutritious diets become more affordable, accessible and sustainable in the face of climate change. We continue to invest in research and development, including in projects to increase the availability and affordability of nutritious vegetables in areas affected by changing weather patterns. We are also encouraging the private sector to produce more nutritious foods.
I want to pick up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). I listened carefully to her update on the work of the all-party parliamentary group on human microbiome, for which I thank her. The nutrition-specific interventions we provide are developed based on rigorous evidence, and we will consider evidence on the microbiome, too.
A number of colleagues mentioned the policy marker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and others have asked us to adopt the OECD Development Assistance Committee policy marker on nutrition across the FCDO portfolio at the programme design phase. I am delighted to be able to confirm that we are committed to doing that across the Department and are encouraging all our international partners to do likewise. We are in the final stages of agreeing our spending plans on nutrition, and I will share further details as soon as possible. I, or my ministerial colleagues, would be more than happy to write to my right hon. Friend with more information in due course.
I once again assure right hon. and hon. Members of our commitment to nutrition as we work to end the preventable deaths of mothers and children. We will continue to deliver on this commitment through to the Tokyo summit and beyond. In the light of the challenges we face, we must see a renewed global effort and we must all play our part.
David Mundell
I thank everyone who has contributed to this thoughtful debate in which many interesting and relevant points have been made. When I have raised this issue in the past, the arguments about the 0.7% target have inevitably been rehearsed, but that is not really the focus of this particular discussion, which is about value from interventions—that is a point that everyone has made.
The hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) said that people who might be at the most sceptical end of the development spectrum must realise that interventions in nutrition offer the best value. The relative sums involved for the outcomes are unquestionable, and indeed, if those interventions are not made, the huge amounts of money put in elsewhere—in girls’ education, for example—lose their value. Numerous statistics and studies show that if girls are at school but cannot pay attention to what is going on, the value of their presence there is lost. I think that argument is unchallengeable, and I am glad that there was consensus on it.
I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) said about the microbiome and yoghurt kitchens. That example demonstrates that we must have, at the heart of our approach to development, more local initiatives that help people in their communities and do not require vast amounts of outside resource. I was fascinated by that and heartened by Minister’s positive response on the microbiome.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) is a seasoned campaigner on development issues, and he authoritatively said that 12 of the 17 development goals are underpinned by nutrition. It is not a side issue—it is right at the heart. Last week, I was very pleased to become co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS, and he was also exactly right to highlight the impact of nutrition on HIV/AIDS. In fact, as he will know, one group of people that need the most support on AIDS is women, particularly in Africa.
Patrick Grady
On nutrition, we would be remiss to go through the entire debate without paying tribute to the work of Mary’s Meals, a well-known Scottish charity that puts providing nutrition and school meals right at the heart of its work, because of the impact of that on education, particularly for girls. It also works with other organisations to produce nutritious food in the first place. Frankly, I am just taking advantage of the spare time in the debate to put that on the record.
David Mundell
Absolutely. If we had video facilities in Westminster Hall, I would be able to show the hon. Gentleman when I joined Mary’s Meals volunteers in not only making a healthy porridge but having a good old singsong about it as well. He is right. Many similar organisations do a really important job.
The hon. Member for Ealing South always takes an important interest in these matters. I was pleased to hear that he would be participating, through the IDC, in the summit. It is important that it is not only governmental, and that interested and relevant parties play a part. Obviously, I did not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) said: I sort of agreed with the start and the end. The contribution of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), was thoughtful and underpinned the core asks that we put to the Minister. I was pleased that the Minister was able to confirm at least one of those asks, and I think everyone following the debate will be pleased that the OECD policy markers will be adopted at an early stage. The other issues that everyone raised are as relevant, and we hope to see a positive response to them.
David Mundell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I am not as familiar with the geography of London as I might otherwise be.
To return to the point I was making, it is clear what the asks are. I hope that the Government will look favourably on them. As I said when I met the Prime Minister, to come back to the initial point, this represents the best value of any intervention or spend that the UK Government could make. The summit is an opportunity to reaffirm global leadership, and I hope that that opportunity is seized.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the 2021 Tokyo Nutrition for Growth summit.
Pet Travel
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in this debate, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I also remind everyone that Members are required by the House to have covid lateral flow tests twice a week if they are coming on to the parliamentary estate. This can be done either at home or in the testing centre.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered pet travel.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this important debate. I declare an interest: I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats. I thank Cats Protection for its assistance in acting as secretariat to the APPG and its help in so many cat matters. I would also note that I own—if that is the right term when it comes to cats—two cats, Milly and Louie. Neither plans to travel, especially Milly, as she does not travel well and sings all the way. Louie, my other cat, was a rescue through Cats Protection, and I hope he is now happy in his forever home. I know that there are many cat-owning Ministers: the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has Gus, and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), another DEFRA Minister, has Midnight. Cats are a great interest for all of us.
Moving to the substance of the debate, I first welcome representatives of Cats Protection and thank them for their detailed briefing, on which my speech largely relies. I am supportive of the proposals for changes to travel legislation for dogs. The increased minimum age limit, the restrictions on numbers, and the ban on importing heavily pregnant dogs and dogs with mutilations such as cropped ears will make a big difference for dog welfare and help to combat the increasing illegal trade in puppies. I am, however, concerned that a lack of focus on cats by DEFRA could result in a missed opportunity to stop the illegal trade in cats and kittens before it reaches the scale and cruelty of the illegal puppy trade.
The estimated population of pet dogs in the UK is 9.6 million, with 26% of adults owning a dog. A very similar proportion of UK adults—24%—own a cat, with an estimated 10.7 million pet cats in total. Cats Protection’s 2021 “Cats and Their Stats” UK report has made significant findings regarding changes to the commercial market for cats and consumer behaviours that put cats at greater risk of exploitation by unscrupulous sellers and, potentially, pet smugglers. Cats Protection has found that consumers are buying, rather than adopting. More recently obtained cats are more likely to have been bought, as opposed to adopted or taken on. Some 34% of cats obtained in the past year were bought—up from 24% for cats obtained more than five years ago.
Cats Protection has also pointed out that consumers are going online to find cats to buy. Those buying cats are increasingly going online to find a cat, 68% of purchased cats having been found online in the last year. It has also found that high-value pedigrees are in demand. According to their owners, more recently obtained cats are significantly more likely to be pedigrees: of those cats obtained in the past year, 36% were pedigrees, compared with just 16% for those obtained over five years ago. With more high-value cats being sought, there is a risk of even more unscrupulous sellers looking to exploit cats and consumers for profit. An analysis by tech4pets for Cats Protection found skyrocketing cat prices across three pet-selling websites, with an increase of around £150 in June 2021 compared with June 2020. That equates to an increase in price of around 45%. The analysis also found that the number of online adverts more than doubled over the same period.
There is no doubt that people want cats. I know that animal welfare charities are currently concerned about the consultation on the commercial and non-commercial movement of pets into Great Britain. In the consultation, DEFRA proposes to increase the minimum import age for puppies from 15 weeks to six months. It also proposes to ban dogs with non-exempted mutilations and the importation of bitches that are more than 42 days pregnant. Those are all sensible and proportionate measures that will safeguard the welfare of dogs. For cats, however, DEFRA is proposing to maintain the current requirements, leaving welfare threats unchecked.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, on which I serve, has produced a report on the movement of pets across borders and recommended that the Government ban the importation of pets, which would include cats younger than six months and heavily pregnant pets, including cats. The Committee also recommended the banning of importation of pets that have been subjected to poor welfare practices, such as the cruel and unnecessary declawing of cats. The recommendations are fully supported by animal welfare charities.
I would like us to raise the importation age of cats. It is true that cat imports do not currently take place on the same scale as dog imports. However, according to the “PDSA Animal Wellbeing Report 2021”, an estimated 48,000 cats acquired between March 2020 and May 2021 came from abroad, accounting for 5% of overall cat acquisitions during that period. Similarly, Cats Protection’s “Cats and Their Stats” report of 2021 estimated that 5% of overall cat acquisitions between March 2020 and March 2021 were from an overseas source. That equates to around 70,000 cats.
Although cat and kitten importation is less widespread than that of dogs, it is clearly a route to satisfy demand for pet cats in Great Britain, and there is no reason to suppose that cat welfare is respected any better than dog welfare by people who import illegally. The increased demand for kittens, coupled with the rapidly rising cost of cats in the aftermath of the covid-19 pandemic, has the potential to make cat importation a more tempting prospect for illegal importers. Cats Protection volunteers found evidence of kittens being advertised for sale with worldwide shipping as an option. It is clear that there is an international trade in cats.
A freedom of information request carried out by Cats Protection found that the number of cats seized at the UK border more than doubled between 2019 and 2020, and the majority were high-value breeds such as Scottish Folds, Maine Coons and Bengals. The breeding of some of these breeds—for example, Scottish Folds—has its own welfare concerns. There has also been a large increase in the number of cats being seized because of non-compliance with the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011 between 2019 and 2020. Providing parity with the proposed dog legislation changes—at the same time as welcome changes are being made for dogs—would safeguard feline welfare against any opportunity for cats to be exploited in a similar way to dogs, particularly given the equivalent surge in demand for cats over the last 18 months.
I will move on to the importing of pregnant cats. As territorial animals, cats choose their environment. Transport can therefore be a stressful experience, as I know from the behaviour of my Milly when she goes to the vet, and it can be especially stressful if they are pregnant—although I hope she is not pregnant. Not extending the provisions proposed for dogs to cats threatens their welfare by risking having pregnant cats imported to meet increased demand. It is essential that the importation of pregnant cats is prohibited in the last 50% of gestation.
Public communications from DEFRA on banning the importation of mutilated animals have had a clear focus on dogs, with tail docking and ear cropping. While that is welcome, mutilation is not a concern only for dogs. Cats can be affected too, such as through the practice of declawing, which is illegal in the UK under section 5 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Under the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, all animals that have mutilations under the 2006 Act should be banned from importation. It is essential that there is a prohibition on importing cats with mutilations, such as declawed cats.
Effective, targeted and robust enforcement is crucial for the success of the new proposals and in order to halt pet smuggling for good. Increased spot checks—including visual checks of animals by Government agencies, which can significantly disrupt the movement of goods and people—are essential if puppy and kitten smuggling is to be tackled effectively. There should also be adequate staffing during weekends and evenings to reduce opportunities to circumvent spot checks, which should be accompanied by increased and sufficiently resourced cross-border and cross-agency collaboration, sharing intelligence and information on suspected smugglers and routes into the UK. It is disappointing that the Government consultation did not include more proposals and questions on an issue of such importance.
From 1 July 2022, commercial imports will have to enter Great Britain via a border control post. Despite that requirement, such posts do not cover all potential points of entry into the UK. It is unclear what steps will be taken to ensure that illegal importers cannot subvert the system simply by surreptitiously landing their animals at a non-designated port which may have less stringent checks. Greater clarity would also be welcome on the process following an illegal landing, as there is significant concern over the consequences if animals were given back to their owner and required to complete a harrowing return journey to their point of origin.
Thank you for chairing the debate, Ms Ali. I also thank the Minister for hearing the debate and I look forward to her response.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate and I commend the Backbench Business Committee for making time for it. I want to mention some of the petitions that have been included as background papers to today’s debate because, although none have reached the 100,000-signature threshold to guarantee a debate, some of them raise important issues that deserve to at least be given an airing.
I commend the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) for her contribution and for her well-informed and well-researched comments, specifically on the laws that relate to the import of cats and how their welfare can be protected. Unlike the hon. Lady, I have never owned a cat in my life; I have been owned by a succession of mogs for a continuous period of about 25 years, although not recently. Something that always struck me was that every one of them was its own person. We have to accept that some animals have feelings, have emotions; they are intensely intelligent and intensely sentient. Sometimes I think they are a bit more emotionally intelligent than us humans.
Sadly, there are parts of the world, and there are people in all parts of the world, that regard all animals as simply objects to be bought and sold for money. Let us face it: there are people who think that their fellow human beings are little more than objects to be bought and sold for money. Therefore it is essential, in any legislation that this Parliament is competent to enforce, which in effect means the way animals are treated in the United Kingdom and all the rules about bringing animals into the United Kingdom, that we always impose our standard, the standard that would be accepted by the vast majority of people in these islands, which is that animals deserve to be treated humanely, to be well treated. They should not be transported halfway around the world in appalling conditions just because somebody thinks that having a cat or a dog of a particular breed will give them a bit of bragging rights at their local club.
In that context, I have to say that I do not get pedigree animals. All our cats were mogs, and proud to be so. I have some friends who get very touchy if their cat or dog is described as the wrong breed. I understand that that is a vital thing for a lot of people. I do not fully understand it myself—I don’t get it. I wonder whether we need to recognise that the belief that certain breeds are intrinsically more valuable than others is perhaps part of the problem. I know that that starts to open up very difficult questions—first, for those who have businesses responsibly and humanely breeding very specialist pedigrees, whether it is cats, dogs or any other animals. However, as somebody who is not really into the pedigree aspect of animals, I sometimes wonder whether it is part of the problem—if the reason why people are able to make money out of the cruel and unlawful treatment of animals is that somewhere, either in the UK or elsewhere, there is somebody who will pay an exceptional amount of money for a dog or cat just because it has a certificate that attaches it to a particular breed.
Dogs Trust has provided a very helpful briefing for today’s debate. It highlights some of the loopholes in the existing legislation and gives examples of how irresponsible breeders and irresponsible importers in the UK will find ways around legislation almost before the ink is dry on the Act. That means that the legislation has to keep being updated. We have to give powers to those with enforcement responsibilities so that they are able to adapt to whatever the latest dodge is.
For example, relatively recently, we have seen a big increase in the number of heavily pregnant dogs being brought into the UK, because the Government tried to help people to avoid buying illegally imported puppies by saying, “Don’t buy a puppy if you don’t see it with its mum.” What happened was that the importer would bring in a heavily pregnant female, show the puppies with their mum as soon as they were born, and then send the mum back to wherever she came from to start the whole horrible process again. The people buying the puppies in those cases thought that they were following the guidance; they had no idea that they were being duped and that the puppy would be with its mum for a few hours, if it was lucky, and that that would be the last it would see of her. I give that as just one example of how legislation has to keep pace with the worst examples of what we see either in the UK illegal pet import industry or in some of the worst examples that we see overseas.
I want to come on to the different petitions. There are two petitions about allowing pets to travel in airplane cabins. Neither has enough signatures to generate a debate, although one of them certainly has enough to merit a formal response from the Government, which it has received. If I am looking at petitions, my eyes are always drawn to the bit of the map that says “Glenrothes and Central Fife”, because how much support a petition has from my constituents is clearly relevant to me; and when I speak on behalf of the Scottish National party, I will always look to see what support it has elsewhere in Scotland. Neither of those two petitions, 587165 and 560549, has any significant support in Scotland. One of them got seven signatures from my constituency, and the other got one. Interestingly, the more heavily subscribed of them seems to have a lot of support in London. I do not know what the reason for that is, but the Government may want to look at why the question of how pets travel in aeroplanes is obviously important to a significant number of people in London and the surrounding area.
I can understand the sentiments behind that petition, because I can appreciate that it is upsetting for an owner to be separated from their pet for a long time while they are travelling and that the owner might think that it is also distressing for the pet. However, I am not convinced that I could support such a petition, although neither am I convinced that I would oppose it; I suppose that I am a bit of a “don’t know” on this issue.
That is partly because I am not an expert and so I cannot answer the question of whether it is in the best welfare interests of an animal to be in the cabin of a plane, where the owner can potentially hear it if it gets upset, but cannot do anything about it, or whether it is better to have pets in a designated part of the hold with a professional welfare officer there to look after them. I do not know the answer to that, but I think the petition possibly overstates the point a bit by suggesting that it is always in the interests of a pet to be kept in the cabin with its owner.
We also have to realise that even if the law was changed, what happens in practice would not necessarily change, because a lot of airlines flying in and out of countries where they are allowed to carry pets in the cabin choose, as a matter of their own policy, not to permit that, or they permit it only in certain circumstances. Thankfully, most airlines allow registered assistance dogs into the cabin, but a lot of them do not go any further than that. Although I can sympathise with the intention behind this petition, I am not convinced that changing the law in the way that is being asked for would have as much benefit as the petitioners perhaps think it would.
I can understand why the Government do not want to introduce any legislation on that just now; I can understand that they might not be convinced of the benefits, but can the Minister point to any clear evidence that changing the law as requested would cause any harm? If changing the law will not do a lot of good, but will not do any harm, why do we not allow airlines to do something that might benefit some of their passengers, unless there is clear evidence that harm would be done?
I have a great deal more sympathy for the other two petitions. First, petition 565677 seeks a common travel area between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland for guide dogs and assistance dogs. It received just under 6,000 signatures, which is not a lot, but in Northern Ireland it received over 3,800 signatures. This petition is about an issue that has little or no impact on mainland Great Britain, but clearly is significant for people in Northern Ireland: 3,800 signatories from a population of 1.9 million is equivalent to about 138,000 signatories in the whole of the United Kingdom. We would clearly see that number as meriting time for a debate, either here in Westminster Hall or even possibly in the main Chamber.
I have a particular interest in making the guide dog service as widely available as possible, because my grandad, Arthur Grant, went blind in later life as a result of cataracts. Then he got Punch. He had Punch for about two or three years, and Punch changed his life. Unfortunately, Punch was quite a bit younger and fitter than my grandad, and too often Punch took grandad for a walk instead of the other way round. So Punch was taken and retrained for a younger owner, and Kirsty arrived. Kirsty was with my grandad for her entire working life. My grandad died the weekend after Kirsty was retired and I will always believe that he just decided that it was time to go.
For all that time, Punch and then Kirsty were my grandad’s eyes, but they were more than that; they were his constant companions. They were his best friends in a way that a dog or a cat that is a best friend to somebody who can see for themselves cannot possibly be.
My grandad had 12 active and independent years at the end of his life, which would not have been possible without those guide dogs, so I can never sufficiently thank the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, as it was called then. I can say with some feeling that any obstacle that gets in the way of this life-changing service in any part of these islands must be removed, if at all possible, and I urge the Government to look very seriously at this petition and to do what it takes to deliver what is being asked for.
It is tragic if anyone in Northern Ireland is either unable to receive the support of a guide dog or has to wait for a guide dog to arrive because of bureaucracy related to Brexit. As this part of the debate focuses almost entirely on Northern Ireland, it is perhaps worth pointing out that grandad Grant was of Ulster descent, which, of course, means that so am I; in fact, I can claim Ulster descent on both sides of my family.
The final petition that we are considering—petition 593806—calls for the UK to join the EU pet passport scheme. Again, there are not a huge number of signatories, but I know that the people who have signed this petition love their animals—their pets—and get really distressed at the additional bureaucracy and additional cost that is now imposed on them if they want to do what they used to do quite easily, which is to take their pet on holiday with them.
What this petition tries to undo is one of the downsides of Brexit that people were not told about before. I am hoping that today’s debate can be consensual, so I will not labour the point too much, but it is one example of a consequence of Brexit that might not have looked like it was very high up the list of issues to be addressed at the time. It simply was not addressed until it was too late.
While the Government will no doubt talk about their efforts to persuade the European Union to improve the UK’s position from part 2 to part 1 listed, the unavoidable truth is that on the day that the Government unilaterally set out for EU exit, they handed that decision over entirely to the European Union. The petition asks to undo some of the damage done by Brexit. I suspect those who signed the petition, even those who voted for Brexit, had no idea of the impact that Brexit was going to have.
Are the Government aware of any harm that would be done if the petition on allowing pets into aircraft cabins was accepted? On the petitions for a common travel area for guide dogs and assistance dogs, and on rejoining the EU pet passport scheme or giving pet owners benefits as close to those granted under that scheme as possible, I urge the Government to do what is requested as soon as possible.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ali—I think it is the first time I have done so. I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on bringing the debate to the Chamber. I follow the work of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs very closely. It produced an excellent report, which the hon. Lady referred to extensively. Some of the issues are under consideration during the passage of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and I had the pleasure of being on the Bill Committee and will comment on some of those points.
Of course, the debate is also about pet travel in general. I start by following up on some of the comments of the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who spoke for the SNP. In my part of the world, huge numbers of people travelled freely to and from our neighbouring countries in the European Union over many years, not just for holidays, but for work. For thousands and thousands of people in and around Cambridge, the changes that were introduced at the start of this year had implications that were perhaps not entirely foreseen, exactly as the hon. Member for Glenrothes has said.
As ever, the House of Commons Library briefing on this was very useful. As it explains, when we left the EU, we were treated as a third country. Now, the new scheme requires pet owners to obtain an animal health certificate for their pet every time they travel to the EU. That certificate must be produced in the 10 days before travel—not exactly always very convenient, when people are busy working. It is valid for four months, and the costs charged vary between an estimated £100 and £150 a time.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Does the briefing that the hon. Gentleman refers to note what other measures EU member states are imposing on people who want to visit the UK and bring their pets? It would be interesting to see what the like-for-like situation is.
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Member raises an interesting point. Sadly, we are exactly in that tit-for-tat situation, so it does not work for anybody, which, of course, is what many of us rather feared.
My constituents now face considerable inconvenience and considerable costs. Frankly, it gets worse. As the hon. Member for Glenrothes said, the Government have negotiated for part 2 listed status, and believe that we should qualify for part 1 listed status, but it is of course part of a wider negotiation, which is the problem we have entered into.
I was quite shocked to read about the situation with Northern Ireland, which effectively means that animal health certificates are needed for trips in and out of Northern Ireland. When asked about the costs, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) said, in reply to a written question, that the cost of AHCs is
“a private matter between individual practices and their clients”.
That is a statement of truth, but no consolation for people who face those very high costs. It is a very unsatisfactory situation. Obviously, we hope that it can be improved in the future.
Mrs Murray
I am sorry to intervene again, but when I worked as a GP receptionist before I came to this place, suggested charges were circulated to all GPs on all sorts of things that they would term “private work”, including diving medicals, signing letters and so on. Does the hon. Gentleman have any information on what the BMA recommends GPs should charge?
Daniel Zeichner
I am slightly confused by the question because I think we are talking about animals and pets.
Daniel Zeichner
I am talking about pets, and the situation is very clearly different from what it was last year. The hon. Member for Glenrothes said that he hoped for a consensual debate—he is absolutely right to—but I am just laying out the facts. Pet travel is more difficult, and although it may be a difficult question to answer, I hope to hear from the Minister about progress on that.
The hon. Member for South East Cornwall raised a whole series of absolutely appropriate questions around pet smuggling, and I will address those.
Mrs Murray
To clarify, I should have said the British Veterinary Association and veterinary practitioners.
Daniel Zeichner
Ah, that is a different issue entirely. I have looked at the BVA policy position on pet travel, and it has a whole series of detailed recommendations. I am not sure that I want to take the Minister through all the various forms of tapeworm and rabies so late on a Thursday afternoon. Clearly, expert advice on how we might be able to improve the position is available to the Government, and I am sure that they will be mindful of it.
I will be brief, as I am sure you will be pleased to hear, Ms Ali, because many of the points have already been well made by both speakers so far. I very much agree with the hon. Member for South East Cornwall about cats—I am a cat person myself. In the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill Committee, we had considerable back and forth on whether the legislation treated cats fairly. I had representations from Cats Protection, and it is fair to say that we would like to strengthen that Bill. I am sure that the Minister will reflect any comments and observations made this afternoon back to her ministerial colleague,
The good news is that the Bill will be back with us on Report and there will be some exciting amendments for people to support. I hope that the hon. Member for South East Cornwall will be with us on those points as we try to strengthen the Bill on behalf of cats. In Committee, there was considerable consensus—sadly, not with the Government, but with some Government Back Benchers—in two or three areas in particular, including whether five or three pets should be checked at the border, and of course, the EFRA Committee had a view on that. The consensus led to a historic tied vote in Committee, which was carried for the Government by the Chair’s reluctant casting vote—the Chair was a Labour Member but he did the decent thing. That matter will, I suspect, be an issue on Report.
Similarly, there was consensus on the age of animals that are being imported, pregnancy and, in particular, fashion-based mutilation. I think we all find it extraordinary that anyone would want to do those horrible things to dogs, or that anyone would want to buy a dog with cropped ears, but it seems, sadly, that people do and that there is a market for that, although I note that many of those poor animals are now being dumped post pandemic, which shows how difficult some of this stuff is. We would also like the legislation to be strengthened in the same way to protect against the declawing of cats, which I think most of us find extraordinary but which is being done, particularly in America. As the hon. Lady said, there are some implementation issues for border checks, because we would need visual checks rather than the current processes to make that work.
Although there are perhaps one or two points on which we cannot agree, we can agree on a lot. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to respond on pet travel. We all know that pets are part of people’s families. We want to ensure that our country is protected, particularly against rabies and other diseases, and to crack down on those who pursue the vile trades that have been mentioned. Provided that pet owners can travel with their pets safely, we want them to be able to do so in the smoothest and most efficient way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Ms Ali—I do not think I have had that pleasure before. What a lovely subject to be debating: cats. I do not know whether you are a cat owner, Ms Ali.
Rebecca Pow
You are not; but a lot of us here are. Those who are not are missing out, I think—hands up for cats. I did not get the name of the shadow Minister’s cat.
Daniel Zeichner
I am afraid my cat has been 25 years gone, but I and the Minister’s colleague the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) have frequently mentioned Brian, who unfortunately was a female cat—I was not entirely accurate in my identification.
Rebecca Pow
And we are still talking about Brian, the female cat, 25 years on, which is pretty good, isn’t it?
Mrs Sheryll Murray
If anybody were tempted to adopt a cat, I am sure they could approach Cats Protection. When I adopted Louie, I did it virtually. The adoption of cats did not stop during the pandemic, and they make such wonderful companions.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend. While we are talking about how wonderful they are, I have to mention my two cats, Mr Tipps and Raffa. The lovely lady who goes into my house to feed them when I am not there has literally just sent me two pictures of them so that I know they are okay—I think they are basically in command when I am not there, having a great time.
We are a nation of dog lovers and cat lovers, are we not? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) for securing this debate. She is a great champion for cats, being chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on cats, and she has a lot of in-depth knowledge of this subject, so I thank her for securing the debate. I personally take all issues relating to the welfare of animals—particularly things such as puppy smuggling, other illegal importations and low welfare movements of pets—extremely seriously. There is an abhorrent trade going on out there. I believe that, as a Back Bencher, I worked with my hon. Friend; indeed, I was co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare. Interestingly, as I think the shadow Minister will agree, a lot of the measures in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill relate to the issues we talked about up to five years ago. Those things, which are a manifesto commitment, are now coming forward in that Bill, cracking down on these ghastly practices, particularly puppy smuggling and low welfare issues. I am very pleased that we are seeing that action happen now.
My hon. Friend will be familiar with the significant changes that I am proposing we make to the existing rules on the non-commercial movement and the commercial importation of cats, dogs and ferrets—do not leave out the ferrets, Ms Ali. We know that there is evidence that traders abuse our pet travel rules, illicitly using them to bring in lots of puppies at once to maximise profit. The welfare of those puppies is frequently compromised—we have all seen some really ghastly footage of what is going on. Indeed, I have friends who have brought a dog without any idea at all that they came through illegal channels, so that definitely needs cracking down on.
The Bill aims to tackle the issue by reducing the number of pets—dogs, cats and ferrets—that can travel in one non-commercial movement from five per person to five per vehicle, or three per person if people are travelling on foot or by air, to prevent unscrupulous traders from exploiting our pet travel rules. Air travel was raised by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who does not have a cat—although I think that, having heard this debate, he might be going home to get one.
Peter Grant
I could not honestly tell the Minister how many cats have owned me in the past. When the last one went to the big cattery in the sky, the reason we chose not to get another one was precisely that we were not happy at having to impose on neighbours to look after them when we were away and did not feel it was fair on the cat to take it with us. It is not that I would not like to have a cat; it is just that we thought it was not fair on the cats to be left to look after the house on their own when we were not there.
Rebecca Pow
That is a really important point for pet owners, and it is why I do not have a dog—it simply would not be fair to leave it. I think that cats are rather more independent, although I have to rely on a neighbour to come in and out, so the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Even though people can now get self-feed mechanisms and watch on their phone to see whether the cats have taken the food, I want a human to come in and see my cats every day, because I think they like it. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes was talking about air travel. Obviously, all pets travelling into GB have to be checked for compliance with the necessary health and documentary requirements prior to entry. To facilitate those checks, all pets entering GB airports must be transported safely and securely to the pet-checking facility. In practice, that means that most pets are required to travel by air to GB as manifest cargo, and we do not have any immediate plans to change the process by which pets—cats, dogs and ferrets—may enter GB by air. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of that. Interestingly, when one was allowed to travel freely, my daughter travelled to Majorca with a friend’s dog. The dog was next to her on the plane, in a proper bag, which I find extraordinary. I have never seen that before, but it was all totally legal and had all the right paperwork. The dog was literally sitting on the seat next to her.
Back to the Bill. As I have said, it aims to tackle these issues by reducing the allowed number of pets from five per person to five per vehicle, and to three per person if one is travelling on foot. We completed extensive research and engagement with various stakeholders to determine a suitable limit that would disrupt the illegal trade while diminishing the impact on genuine owners travelling with their pets under the pet rules. The Bill also includes an enabling power to make regulations about the importation of pet animals in Great Britain, for the purpose of promoting animal welfare. That will enable us to go further in the future and explore measures such as increasing the minimum age at which animals can be moved for non-commercial purposes or commercially imported into Great Britain, prohibiting the importation of heavily pregnant dams and animals that have been subjected to mutilations, such as ear-cropping and tail-docking. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall welcomes all the measures in the Bill, as she said. The Bill has completed its Committee stage in the House of Commons, as we have heard, and we are now awaiting a date for Report.
In August, the Government launched an eight-week consultation on our proposed restrictions to the commercial and non-commercial movement of pets in Great Britain. The consultation focused largely on dogs and included proposals to prohibit the commercial importation and non-commercial movement of puppies under six months, dogs that have undergone non-exempted mutilations such as cropped ears and docked tails, and dogs that are over 42 days pregnant. We have proposed a limited number of exceptions to the measures that were laid out within the consultation, which also sought views on the enforcement regime, the process for seizing and detaining animals that are suspected of being illegally imported, and whether the maximum penalty should be increased.
The consultation has now closed, and we have received an incredible 14,000 responses from a wide range of stakeholders and members of the public. We are analysing all the responses to the consultation and will publish a summary in due course. That will allow us to take on board the views of the public and interested groups, such as Cats Protection, to shape future policy. We will continue to work closely with all the stakeholders before the introduction of the legislation to ensure that the final measures are well considered and led by the latest evidence.
We are finally getting to cats. I fully acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about extending the measures to cats, and I am also aware that a number of stakeholders are calling for us to raise the minimum age at which kittens can be imported and to ban the importation of heavily pregnant and declawed cats. I absolutely agree with hon. Members who have mentioned that horrific activity, which is illegal in the UK. We did not propose those measures in the consultation because there is limited evidence of a significant illegal trade in cats, or significant numbers of low welfare movements.
Going into some of the stats, the number of movements of cats into Great Britain is much lower than for dogs. In 2020, cats made up 9% of the total commercial movements of cats, dogs and ferrets to Great Britain, although that was a 2% increase from 2019 and I acknowledge the point made about cat ownership rocketing during lockdown. Dogs travelling by the same rules made up 91% of the total movements. Non-commercial movements of cats are also much lower than those of dogs. In 2020, 12% of the corresponding non-commercial movements into Great Britain were of cats, while dogs made up 88% of the total movements over the same period. We are also not seeing the same issues with young kittens and pregnant cats being imported. In 2020, only 17 kittens under 15 weeks—and zero pregnant cats—were seized and detained.
The consultation obviously sought views on whether that was the right approach. I note the comments made and will definitely pass them to the Minister who is bringing forward the Bill, particularly about pregnant cats, the specialist breeds, and that de-clawing mutilation issue.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
There is a possibility for an amendment in the other place to ensure that we are not back here in five years’ time because the situation with dogs has been addressed, but the situation with cats has escalated to the level that we now see with dogs. We perhaps need to prepare for the future.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that very clear point. Obviously, the details of the consultation will be analysed. A lot of views were put forward, and I obviously want to give reassurances that the issue will be fully considered and the response will be published.
One or two Members mentioned enforcement, and the Animal and Plant Health Agency works collaboratively with Border Force and other operational partners at ports, airports, and inland, sharing intelligence to enforce the pet travel scheme, disrupt illegal imports and seize non-compliant animals. The enabling power in the Bill allows the Government to make provisions about the enforcement of any new prohibitions brought in under the power. In addition, APHA has the ability, under existing legislation, to undertake checks on pets, including documentary, identity and physical checks.
We do not propose to make fundamental changes to the enforcement regime as we believe the network of agencies and stakeholders who work on puppy smuggling are doing a good job. We operate one of the most rigorous and robust pet-checking regimes in Europe, and all non-commercial dogs, cats and ferrets entering Great Britain on approved routes—every route other than via the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Crown Dependencies—under the pet travel rules undergo 100% documentary and identity checks by authorised pet checkers.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall is correct that commercial movements of cats, dogs and ferrets into Great Britain from the European Union must soon enter Great Britain via a designated border control post. Under the Government’s phased border strategy, post-import checks on commercial cats, dogs and ferrets from the EU are due to be replaced with border control post risk-based checks when sufficient capacity allows. All third-country—so non-EU—shipments are currently checked at the border control post prior to entry. That will continue. As I mentioned, APHA will continue to work collaboratively with Border Force and other operational partners to share intelligence to disrupt this illegal trade.
Rebecca Pow
I will take the intervention, but first I want to say a little more that might answer the question the hon. Gentleman is about to ask. He raised the issues —as did our SNP colleague, the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant)—of the part 2 third country status. The UK has been formally listed as a part 2 third country for the purposes of the EU pet travel scheme, which means that new rules post the transition period now apply to pet movement from Great Britain to the EU and Northern Ireland. These rules are set out in the EU pet travel scheme.
We are committed to simplifying pet movements. As set out in the July ’21 Command Paper, we seek a new balance with the EU that would allow pets that meet UK standards to move more freely. DEFRA recognises the undue impact that these changes are having on many people, including pet owners and assistance dog users. DEFRA has been clear that there are no animal health or biosecurity justifications for those additional rules for travel to the EU, and we seek agreement with the EU Commission on awarding GB part 1 listed status and recognition of the UK’s tapeworm-free status. Achieving them would obviously alleviate the most onerous pet travel rules for all travellers. We see no valid animal health reasons for those not to be granted.
Rebecca Pow
I will give way now. I hope that I have already answered the impending question.
Daniel Zeichner
I am very grateful to the Minister. Does she agree that these extra burdens—the £150, the 10 days—make life much more difficult for many of our constituents?
Rebecca Pow
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. That is why DEFRA is working hard on the issue. We already have one of the most rigorous pet-checking regimes, to protect our biosecurity. We have submitted a detailed technical case setting that out. We continue to engage with the EU to come up with a much more workable situation.
You will be pleased to hear, Ms Ali, that I am going to wind up my speech. I reassure hon. Members and my hon. Friends that the Government’s commitment to protecting and enhancing the welfare of animals is uppermost. I believe we have already achieved a great deal, but we want to go further, hence the introduction of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. We want to ensure that all animals are afforded the care, protection and respect that they deserve. I am proud of the work going on through the Bill and the measures that the Government have already taken. I reassure Members that officials are working hard behind the scenes. That consultation is being analysed and will be published shortly.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall for introducing it. I think we all agree that we are a nation of pet lovers, and cat lovers in particular. Once the debate is over, I will be heading for the train to get back to see my two cats.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
I will not delay us any longer either, because I am going to hit the car to get back to Milly and Louie. I thank the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for attending the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) had intended to attend, as a real expert on veterinary matters, but unfortunately he had another engagement. I thank the Minister for her answers. I hope she will be able to make sure that the Bill, when it finally becomes an Act, is welcomed by our cat friends as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered pet travel.
Written Statements
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Agricultural Transition
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We are almost one year into the agricultural transition. Farming in England is moving away from the arbitrary land-based subsidies and top-down bureaucracy that epitomised the EU era, towards schemes that recognise the work that farmers do as stewards of our natural environment. Our reforms will support productive and profitable farming and food production alongside environmental, climate and animal welfare outcomes.
Since January, we have increased the money going to countryside stewardship and seen a 40% increase in applications compared with the previous years, launched the farming in protected landscapes scheme, consulted on a voluntary exit scheme, launched the farming investment fund to boost farm profitability and started a pilot of our new sustainable farming incentive.
I would like to update the House on the progress that we have made, working with English farmers to co-design our new systems and support the choices that they make for their own holdings. By the end of the transition, we expect spending to be evenly split across farm-level, locally tailored, and landscape-scale investment.
Sustainable farming incentive
The sustainable farming incentive will fund sustainable farming activities alongside food production, and it will eventually be open to all farmers. It will open in 2022 with the first payments being made before the end of the year. Today I am publishing more detail on how it will operate in 2022 and how the offer will be expanded from 2023 to 2025.
Local nature recovery
Local nature recovery is the improved and more ambitious successor to the existing countryside stewardship scheme. Its focus will be on making space for nature in the farmed landscape and the wider countryside. As with countryside stewardship, it will comprise a menu of options. The options will be broader and more ambitious, focusing on biodiversity, climate, water quality and other co-benefits alongside food production. It will fairly pay farmers for using perhaps less productive areas of their farms for those purposes. We will support collaboration between farmers such as in the way that cluster farms currently operate.
Landscape recovery
Landscape recovery will create at least 20,000 hectares of wilder landscapes, habitats, rewetted peat and afforestation at a landscape scale, and we are ambitious in going even further in harnessing our landscapes for the natural environment. This option will reward landowners or managers who want to take a more radical and large-scale approach to producing environmental and climate outcomes on their land. Industry engagement has confirmed that there is demand for this scheme, and we will launch the application process—and further details of this and the local nature recovery scheme— in the new year.
While we roll out our new schemes, we are encouraging farmers to enter into countryside stewardship. Today I am also confirming that we will be updating countryside stewardship payment rates from January 2022, which will be published in the new year. We will help farmers in countryside stewardship and other schemes make the transition to our new schemes from 2024 onwards.
We are also investing in animal health and welfare. The animal health and welfare pathway will drive continual improvement in farm animal health and welfare across our national flocks and herds.
I also want to set out the high-level environmental priorities for our programme: climate change mitigation and adaptation; species abundance; water quality; and soil health. Farmers and land managers are central to delivering these priorities, to reach our commitments in the net zero strategy and the statutory targets that will be set under the Environment Act 2021, including to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030.
We will set out high-level priorities and design incentives for actions that will contribute to them. Within this overall framework, it will be for farmers to choose how they want to get involved, whether that is by sparing small areas of unproductive land, changing to a more regenerative approach, or pursuing more radical land use change.
We will pay farmers for the actions that they take in these areas, and activities that provide co-benefits in other areas, such as building the resilience of the environment to climate change, improving air quality, natural flood management and coastal erosion risk mitigation. We will also continue to pay for heritage, access and engagement through our existing schemes and we will consider how to maintain investment in these areas as part of future schemes.
[HCWS437]
Acquired Brain Injury
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
The Government are committed to supporting all people living with an acquired brain injury (ABI) and those living with other neurological conditions and seek to prevent acquired brain injuries wherever possible.
The Government recognise the strength of support for a more collaborative and cross-departmental approach to ensuring that people with ABI receive the support that they need from statutory services. I would like to express my gratitude to both my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for continuing to champion this important cause and recognise their significant contributions to improving services for people living with an ABI. As the Prime Minister announced on 24 November 2021, the Department of Health and Social Care will be leading work to develop a cross-Government strategy on ABI. I am pleased to confirm today some further details regarding the strategy.
The content of the strategy will be informed by a call for evidence which will be launched early in 2022, inviting stakeholders nationwide, including healthcare professionals, people living with an acquired brain injury, their families and carers, to put forward their views about what should be prioritised within the strategy. These priorities could include guidance on action to prevent acquired brain injury, including through concussion in sport; on research into the societal, congenital, medical and environmental causes of ABI; on the provision of relevant services for the purpose of diagnosing ABI, including in prisons, schools and the armed forces; on the identification of adults and children with ABI; on the assessment of their needs; and on the planning of relevant services. We will also ask for feedback on whether there are other related neurological conditions which should be considered for inclusion.
Development of the strategy will be overseen by a dedicated programme board, which, in my capacity as Minister for Care and Mental Health, I will co-chair with the hon. Member for Rhondda. Senior officials in all relevant Government Departments will be invited to join the board to ensure that the strategy addresses the wide range of issues that affect the day to day lives of those living with an ABI. This will include representatives from the Welsh Government and other devolved Administrations, as appropriate.
Following publication, the strategy will be kept under review and may be revised periodically to ensure that it continues to reflect the priority areas and actions needed to best support people living with ABI and their families.
[HCWS438]
Machinery of Government Change: Boycotts, Disinvestments and Sanctions
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of government change.
The Government have committed to legislation to ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries. Responsibility for this will transfer from the Cabinet Office to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. This change will take effect on 8 December 2021.
[HCWS439]
Grand Committee
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking.
National Health Service: Liability Costs
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the liability costs to the National Health Service in England that relate to negligence can be reduced; and, if so, how.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I intend to read what I have said. It is very unusual for me to do so and I hope that I will read it reasonably well. I do it because I sent a copy of what I am going to say to the Minister, as I am going to make some suggestions and I thought it only sensible that she should know what they were because trying to answer them immediately might be slightly more difficult, so it is in the hope that it will be practical that I do this.
My first appearance here as a junior advocate was in a clinical negligence case. Your Lordships will understand that that was not yesterday or the day before, and I have done a number of these cases in a more senior role since. I should say, in order to deal with the idea of any sort of specialty, that I am an honorary fellow of three royal colleges—particularly, in this area, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
In the last year the cost to the NHS of clinical negligence was £2,209.3 million, of which claimant legal costs were £448.1 million. The cost to the NHS of its own service is shown as less, but the two are not properly comparable because the NHS costs do not include the staff costs and that kind of thing. That was confirmed in a Written Answer some time ago. It is sometimes suggested that this is due to the existence of conditional fees—some doctors seem to think that conditional fees have caused this—but I point out that not a penny goes out on that basis unless fault is agreed or established on the part of the NHS.
I ask the Minister to say whether, when a fault is established or agreed against the NHS, the whole service is warned to avoid repeating it. It seems to me that that would be one of the best ways of cutting down examples of negligence. Once something has happened, it is important that everyone is warned against it happening again. These things are apt to be quite common.
One of the first cases that I did involved the death of a person in anaesthesia. The reason was that the machine that was used had two levers, one for shutting out the oxygen and the other being set to allow the oxygen in. The anaesthesiologist in charge of dealing with this child did not notice that the lever was down and the oxygen was shut off. They could not understand what was wrong and sadly the child died before they discovered it. If that happens, it should be broadcast right across the area of the NHS that is using that kind of facility so that it can be stopped immediately. That is such an obvious thing to happen. What arrangements are there in the NHS for spreading the news of a fault in order that it be not repeated?
On damages, I strongly advocate the repeal of Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948. In my experience, two principal factors increase damages. One is that the fault occurred at or near birth, so the damages take account of the whole of life, which is why those damages are especially high. The second is that the loss of earnings resulting from the fault is large. Generally, the NHS treats all patients equally and I suggest that it would be appropriate to cap the rate at which loss of earnings can be recovered by perhaps a multiple of the current average wage. That could be made public and any patient undergoing treatment whose income was higher than the cap could, I suggest, make an insurance arrangement accordingly.
In the case where the liability of the NHS is established, there is scope for excessive claimants’ costs. I suggest that a table of allowable costs linked to the amount of damages could be used to mitigate this with a provision—I can see that there are cases requiring this—that the court should have a power in a particular case involving special difficulty not provided for in the table to award a larger figure.
I should add that over my career I have been involved in many discussions of alternatives to the judicial system: administrative systems, systems that make it automatic and so on. I have never found, or been involved in, a decision to accept anything of that sort as satisfactory. I honestly believe that the judicial system is the most efficient and fair-minded system that you can have.
One of the great difficulties is that inevitably there is a distinction between what is caused by fault and what is natural. What is caused by fault will be subject to compensation and what is natural will obviously not. Often the investigation into the cause is the centre of the investigation that normally takes place. These are humble suggestions made with a view to trying to help the NHS to devote the money that it gets to front-line services rather than paying out to people who have been harmed, more or less, in their course of treatment by the NHS.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, speaking in the presence of senior lawyers as a humble simple solicitor is always, to me at least, rather a trial. When I first came to the House of Lords, I made the serious error of speaking with what I had self-styled authority on a particular Supreme Court case. My failure to read the speakers’ list properly led me to be somewhat humiliated when the next speaker had been a member of the Supreme Court and had deliberated on the case that I was citing. I learned my lesson, so I shall be very careful in the presence of eminent lawyers in what I have to say.
In preparation for this short debate, I thought that I would supplement the usual excellent Hansard extracts and our Library briefings with some extra material gleaned from the world wide web. As a lawyer, I have become used to the new permitted advertising, hopefully tasteful, that my profession has undertaken in recent years, but I was astonished to find that under the heading of “medical negligence” it was almost impossible to find anything of an objective, instructive or helpful nature among the plethora of law firms and quasi-legal entities offering very strong encouragement to citizens to pursue medical negligence claims.
We are all of course aware of initiatives taken by some legal firms to pursue group actions, where they try to encourage us to find fault with motor cars that do not quite come up to specifications—I think that all of us have seen that. My legal training always suggested to me that a simple principle was no compensation without a proof of loss. However, that does not seem to be the case anymore, so without trespassing on the current cases, I wonder how that principle is being maintained. There have been times when I have been sitting at home and relaxing at the weekend when I have suddenly had a phone call telling me that I have had a car accident and asking whether I would like to claim large sums of money as a result.
I am not for a moment suggesting that medical negligence cases are anything but proper and necessary where the negligence is clear and should be punished or accounted for. My problem lies with the way in which claimants are sometimes encouraged to come forward: “no win, no fee”, “our 30-second claim calculator”, “getting results for you” or “no need to go to court because financial settlements are quite common” et cetera. I wonder how many times the NHS finds it cheaper and more convenient to pay out money without accepting liability after receiving threats of this kind—and threats of court action as well. No test of the issues ever takes place in such cases.
My trade union, the Law Society, has commented on government plans to introduce fixed costs for smaller claims against the NHS in changes to Civil Procedure Rules. This is against a background where, often, the legal costs in such cases far exceed the actual compensation obtained. I agree that even in smaller claims we should not restrict a solicitor’s ability to work on them to the highest standards, but, if possible, we need to avoid the need for expensive and drawn-out exercises. More generally, the way in which claims are handled by the NHS bodies, including NHS Resolution, is a cause for concern. My noble and learned friend has already highlighted the enormous sums paid out for claims and legal costs—more than £2 billion a year, 1.5% of the entire NHS budget.
A Cambridge University paper on clinical negligence and evidence, published in July this year, highlights the problems in assessing cases. It reminds us that in order to succeed in a claim against the NHS four elements must be proven in the law of tort: first, that the health provider had a duty of care to the claimant; secondly, that such a duty of care was breached; thirdly, that the breach caused the claimant some form of loss or harm; and, fourthly, that at least one of the losses caused by the provider’s breach is actionable. This is the common law and it is based on the interpretation of a greater than 50% probability that a breach of care led to private losses. I think that some medico-legal advertisers should be reminded of those elements as well.
The other problem, even when these basic hurdles are passed and liability is proven or accepted, is the question of quantum: how much? What is the level of economic and social redress or individual loss and what level of punitive damages should be awarded? In the latter case, is there evidence that punitive damages have a direct effect on improving standards and, more specifically, ensuring that those who were responsible for the negligence suffer consequences or, at the very least, change their processes or work systems to avoid further episodes? They should of course be aware of any claims or judgments that have involved them in the first place, but that is not always the case.
So far, I have been speaking as a lawyer and looking at these issues from an outside perspective. Some years ago, I was a member of a regional health authority and then a founder member of the Mental Health Act Commission.
I want to conclude by examining the ever-increasing number of claims for medical negligence and the actions that might or should be taken by the NHS to minimise them. The first must be to generally improve standards and patient safety, as my noble and learned friend referred to. This is easy to suggest, but it must be seen against a background of intense pressure on staff and the service generally, as well as resource limitations. Secondly, we need to analyse where the claims are mostly concentrated. The Public Accounts Committee has identified that a large number of high-value claims are related to maternity care. Recent figures suggest that up to 50% of the value of claims were in this field, though only 10% of the number of claims.
Thirdly, the NHS must pursue alternatives through mediation and dispute resolution. Not everybody wants to litigate, even if they are sometimes over-encouraged. Sometimes they just want to be acknowledged and have their concerns recognised, with actions taken to improve standards. Fourthly, the NHS should not prevaricate or delay settlements where the evidence is clear; dragging out proceedings for months or years increases costs on all sides. Finally, as regularly recommended, including by NHS Resolution, learning from mistakes and improvement should be priorities for health managers and professionals in the service. They should be able to lead and be more responsible for health outcomes. This is an important subject for debate and I am pleased to have been able to make a small contribution.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend, who has made an interesting and helpful contribution, not only from the legal point of view but from that of policy. We are all grateful to my noble and learned friend for initiating this debate, which gives us an opportunity to refer to some things that would help the NHS. In the process, we might also provide some additional emotional, physical and practical help to those who suffer harm as a consequence of failings in NHS treatment.
I do not come at this as a lawyer at all. I had responsibility for the health service for a while, but I probably devoted more time and energy to thinking about this issue during the passage of the NHS Redress Act 2006, when I was the shadow Secretary of State, than at any other time. Noble Lords will be aware that we in Parliament often devote our time to such Bills in the fond expectation that someone will do something with them afterwards. That did not happen with the redress Act; it was not commenced. There was a Labour Government at the time and we had a pretty full debate on it. I do not entirely agree with the Act, but I would say two things about it.
First, I think that at the end of the day we all subscribe to the proposition that we should not go down the route of a no-fault compensation system. My view has always been that it is incredibly difficult to distinguish between harm resulting from the fact of a disease and harm resulting from the treatment for that disease. In my case, I have had radiotherapy, surgery and so on; I have consequences, but I do not think that the NHS did anything other than look after me splendidly. Radiotherapy causes damage, but I do not expect that I should be compensated for that damage.
That leaves us with a third category, where I think that we have a taxpayer responsibility: harm that results from treatment that is not up to the standard that patients have a right to expect and, as my noble friend said, that the duty of care would require. If that duty of care is breached and harm results, a liability is established. I think that we were quite clear at the time and have continued to take the view that we should focus on trying to ensure that, where harm results from a poorer standard of treatment, compensation should arise.
The second thing that came out of all this was that it is absolutely clear that what patients and their families are looking for is openness and transparency— an understanding that something went wrong, an acknowledgment of fault and a desire and willingness to learn from it and to do better in future. Very often, what you hear from patients and families is that they do not want this to happen to somebody else again. In that respect my noble and learned friend is absolutely right.
How do we learn from this? The Health and Care Bill starts here next week and there are patient safety aspects to it, but a lot of this rests on the way in which the NHS manages itself. Of course, those who are responsible for NHS services are incentivised directly by the Care Quality Commission and the way in which it conducts its reports and looks at the services provided, and by NHS Resolution itself. The way in which the NHS funds this is through the payment of what are in effect premiums to NHS Resolution, which is effectively an insurance system for the NHS and indeed for private providers of NHS services and now for general practitioners as well. It does so on the basis that the premium charged is related to an extent not only to the risks that are run but to the standard of service that is being offered. There are direct incentives from NHS Resolution to trusts to get it right and we want to sustain that.
If I may, I will make passing reference to the report from our noble friend Lady Cumberlege. I think that she might wonder, as I do, whether we cannot use NHS Resolution more, to be an agency through which categories of patients who have sustained harm can be in a scheme for compensation, rather than simply operating on the basis of claims that are brought directly before the courts.
I turn to the courts and in a sense respond to the question asked by my noble and learned friend in this debate. Out of the NHS Redress Act and subsequent thought come three things. One is that we argued in 2006 for a fact-finding phase. A lot of the costs entailed in cases brought before NHS Resolution are down to expert witnesses and legal representation. We can significantly reduce those costs if there is a shared fact-finding phase that then has to be accepted as the basis on which a negotiated settlement might emerge. That was not built into the Act at the time, but I still think that we should go down that path.
Secondly, there is the question of the discount rate. It was probably about the time I was Secretary of State that suddenly the cost to the NHS of negligence claims increased dramatically—I think that it nearly doubled—and this was simply because the discount rate changed. Very low interest rates equate to very large sums required to deliver a given standard of care, and the costs associated with it, over a long period. We cannot just go around manipulating the discount rate, and my noble and learned friend will say that there is a lot of history to all this, but I think that what we could do—I will finish with this—is at least address the issue that half the cost of claims relates unfortunately to maternity services and the consequences for neonates and very small children. These are lifelong costs and the NHS very often meets many of them, whether through its own services or through NHS continuing healthcare.
As I understand it, the court does not really take account of that. What it sets out to do is provide a sufficient sum by way of damages that would allow the family to be compensated to the extent that they can provide all the services that are required for the child. The fact that these services will be provided by the NHS is not sufficiently taken into account. We should go down the path of saying that, where the NHS comes in and looks after somebody following an acceptance of fault, the level of damages that should be paid as a consequence should be reduced.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to say a few things on this. I think that it is very much unfinished business, not least because of the lack of action on the NHS Redress Act 2006. I hope that this will be a spur to action, following what my noble and learned friend has brought before us.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I begin with an apology. I did not timeously put my name down for this debate, but I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to say a few words on this topic. I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for having raised this matter at debate.
I begin by simply posing one question for the Minister: when will the Government publish their consultation on this issue? I understood that it would be available by the end of the year, but that rapidly approaches.
I do not wish to indulge in repetition, but we should bear in mind that the second largest contingent liability of the United Kingdom Government is clinical negligence claims, at about £83 billion, which is slightly short of the disposal of nuclear waste. The cost on an annualised basis to the National Health Service has already been mentioned: almost 2% of its annual budget. In those circumstances, I suggest that a more radical approach to the whole issue is required rather than tinkering. I fully accept that improvements in maternity care could have a material impact on the cost of clinical negligence claims, as those long-life claims represent something like 60% of the cost to NHS Resolution. While, for example, an amendment to Section 2 of the 1948 Act would be welcome, it applies only in respect of hospital care costs, not social care costs. When you are looking at catastrophic injury in childbirth, the vast majority of the costs arise in the context of social care costs, not hospital costs. Again, it may help, but it has only a peripheral benefit.
I suggest that we begin by acknowledging the social contract that exists with those who are able to engage in a health service that is free at the point of use. That would allow us to take the whole issue of liability out of the law of tort and into some sort of administrative scheme. One of the advantages of that would be the following. One considers this from the point of view of the victim or their family, but there are two sides to this. There is also the professional reputation of those whose professional ability may be impugned by a claim based on negligence. That is why it is so often difficult to resolve these issues without recourse to the courts, although I note that NHS Resolution is able to resolve more than half these claims without litigation.
Again, at the end of the day, litigation costs are only peripheral. I therefore strongly urge that, instead of looking at one or two individual issues such as improvement in maternity care or the repeal of Section 2, we should pause and consider a far more radical approach to the way in which we deal with the demands that arise from these cases. That may take us beyond the question of tortious liability into an area of no-fault liability, as suggested by the NHS Redress Act 2006. I am obliged to noble Lords for allowing me those few words.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for calling this important debate. I note that this is not a new issue to your Lordships’ House. My noble friends Lord Sharkey and Lord Storey have both raised questions on the failings of the current system of liability rules over the last three years. From these Benches, our starting point and what we believe should be the legislative priority must be that any patients injured by negligence are rightly entitled to compensation and their appropriate legal fees should be paid.
The fact that this debate takes us into the technical intricacies of clinical negligence cases must not distract us from the real problem at hand. As we have heard, the current system is heavily weighted against a patient or their family fighting for that justice and compensation. In our view, this needs to be changed.
I am not a lawyer and I am in awe of the legal debate that has just preceded my small contribution. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for his expert introduction on the legal problems in the current system of liability costs. I note most particularly the problems with the NHS Redress Act 2006, which proposed redress without recourse to civil proceedings but which, unfortunately, enabled the NHS to investigate itself. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that it has totally failed and has left patients and their families in a ghastly nightmare world of fighting for compensation following negligence against an enormous organisation that seems to have unlimited resources.
I listened with interest to the radical proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, which sounded very interesting. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, outlined, unfortunately negligence does occur, and much more frequently than people understand. Comments have already been made about maternity services, where there is a particular issue. I have a particular interest in the lives of severely disabled children, some of whose conditions have resulted from clinical negligence at their birth.
So far, individual problems of trying to live with some of that negligence have not been mentioned, so I shall speak briefly about one family I know, who had to take on the NHS and were absolutely determined to use every legal technique in the book. Their child was starved of oxygen at birth and requires looking after 24 hours every day, which requires amendments to their house and support in lots of different medical areas—so it is costing the NHS money as well. As their child has started school, it has required schooling needs, transport to and from school and respite care for the family, who are doing most of this 24-hour care themselves—all running alongside a perpetual battle with NHS lawyers over the claim.
There are other horror stories, too, which have appeared in the press, about case files being lost in hospitals and staff being reluctant to come forward and speak, which tells me that there is a real cultural problem about the current system, whereby staff inside the NHS are worried about blame and the impact on their careers, and the lawyers are doing anything they can to avoid having to pay out large sums of money. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, made a very important point about improving standards inside the NHS, but that cannot happen until the cultural attitudes about blame mean that it becomes possible to learn across the NHS from mistakes. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned interestingly the debate about whether no-fault compensation should be applied, and the difficulties associated with that.
I come back to the patients, who do not want anyone else to have to go through the battle that they face. I absolutely echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about using NHS Resolution—except that there are now five different branches of that. I really think that we need to learn from the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, First Do No Harm, and the imminent appointment of the first patient safety commissioner for medical devices. We hope that that will be an independent system. As we heard in Oral Questions this morning, we have yet to see the exact timing of the appointment of the first commissioner, but we are also looking to see that the SIs brought forward to your Lordships’ House will make it clear that it has to be an independent role.
I see that in negligence claims there might be some mechanism for a person independent of the NHS. It is absolutely vital that this is reviewed, and I echo the question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on when the government recommendations will be published, as we are certainly running out of time for end of the calendar year. As this is unfinished business, it is still affecting the lives of patients and their families every day, as well as vitally reducing funds for our hard- pressed NHS as money is spent on fighting these cases.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for securing this important debate and for his expert and insightful introduction. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, stressed, your Lordships’ House has regularly over the years debated and supported measures to try to halt the steady and alarming increase in NHS litigation costs and to ensure that the lessons learned from the appalling cases of neglect that we all too often have to consider can be used to both prevent further harm and promote future patient safety.
The debate is timely, as the Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee inquiry into NHS litigation reform undertakes its crucial work, following the evidence sessions earlier this year. That is where I was able to get a lot of material for today’s debate. It is also timely because we now have the resurrected Health Service Safety Investigations Bill, scrutinised in depth by a Joint Committee of both Houses, which started its passage in this House two years ago. This time it is part of the Health and Care Bill, which we will commence work on next week.
We strongly supported the original Bill and were very disappointed when it suddenly fell off the Government’s radar. Despite efforts from across the House, Ministers were unable to explain where it had gone and why it was not being vigorously pursued in the light of the urgent imperative to embed the lessons-learned culture into the NHS.
The aim of the health service safety investigations body is to improve the quality of locally conducted investigations and, through its own high-quality investigations and better-conducted local investigations, to reduce the incidence of future harm in the NHS. This is to be achieved through an improved process of capturing and acting on learning, although the extent to which this happens will largely depend on the actions of other organisations in the system rather than the HSSIB itself.
While these benefits cannot be quantified, the expectation and hope are that they will outweigh the monetary costs incurred by the investigations, avoid costs associated with correcting or compensating for harmful incidents, and generate health gains, anticipated to be sufficient to offset the costs associated with making any necessary improvements in investigative practice and systems and/or safety. As we have heard today, those are all both urgent and pressing.
It is estimated that, if the lessons generated from HSSIB investigations could reduce patient safety incidents and in turn clinical negligence claims by just 0.3%, this would level out the £6.2 million per annum investment in its role and work, and lead to a significant reduction in current NHS litigation costs. The importance of protecting the HSSIB’s independence and its ability to provide the safe space to participants in investigations are key issues that we will pursue in the Health and Care Bill. These are obviously for the discussions that will begin next week, not for today.
On costs, the Health and Social Care Select Committee’s terms of reference point out that an additional £7.9 billion was spent on compensation from claims settled in previous years, meaning that more than £10 billion that could have been spent on patient care was spent on clinical negligence. Most worryingly, the Medical Defence Union’s evidence to the inquiry predicted that any money raised by the new health and social care levy would be entirely swallowed up by the amounts paid each year in NHS clinical negligence claims. What is the Government’s assessment of this claim? How does it impact their plans to reduce the huge NHS waiting lists for treatments? Most importantly, what money will be left for social care?
The Minister has reassured the House previously that the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice are working closely together to identify ways of reducing costs. I look forward to receiving an update on this and other cross-government work that is being undertaken, the progress being made and intended timescales for action.
We have heard expert contributions today, covering many of the key issues that the Health Committee is examining: the legal and systemic changes needed to how compensation is awarded; how processes can be simplified so that claims can be speeded up and patients receive redress more quickly; and how adversarial legal processes can be changed and collaboration requirements between the legal advisers representing both sides of claims can be strengthened to facilitate earlier constructive engagement between the parties and end the often drawn-out and protracted processes that cause such distress and frustration to patients and their families, as we have heard today. Underlying them all is the importance of the system being able to learn from common failures—medical, procedural, training or managerial, policy or technology. The priority of better, safer care must be paramount.
One of the advantages of today’s debate is, as noble Lords have said, the valuable and timely spotlight it places on the work of NHS Resolution, the body that defends claims. It is sobering to note that, in the context of establishing the two Covid 19-specific indemnity schemes, £0.5 billion has been added to the estimate of future claims. Also, although the number of claims is expected to be down because of fewer operations and less treatment, and therefore fewer errors from potential clinical negligence, claims against primary care since NHS Resolution added this area to its portfolio in 2019 have seen a 40% increase.
Overall, we have a mixed picture. The cost of medical negligence has fallen for the second year running, although the percentage attributed to maternity claims has not changed—as noble Lords have stressed—while the cost of damages awarded has increased without a rise in the total number of cases. On maternity care, it will be helpful if the Minister can provide a progress update, either now or in writing, on the review taking place on the nearly 2,000 cases that came under review following last year’s shocking Ockenden report on the appalling failures in maternity care services at Shrewsbury and Telford maternity hospital.
The NHS Resolution 2020-21 annual report specifically refers to its work on safety to support the ambition to halve the rates of stillbirth, neonatal and maternity deaths and neonatal brain injuries occurring during or soon after birth by 2025, with an interim ambition of a 20% reduction in these rates by the end of last year. In written evidence to the health committee, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Medicine warn that spending on NHS litigation continues to constitute a threat to the sustainability of the NHS.
Maternity cases account for 11% of the total number of all clinical negligence claims but for 59% of the total costs in litigation by value. Overall maternity claims are valued at approximately £4.2 billion, a figure that has almost doubled since 2016-17. NHS Resolution also reports a continuing increase in claims for gynaecology in recent years, of which a large percentage are associated with the vaginal mesh scandal highlighted in the report First Do No Harm from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, referred to by other noble Lords. This issue will also be debated under the Health and Care Bill, particularly the key issue of redress systems for the victims of harm.
From today’s debate, it is clear that government action and the conclusion of the health committee’s inquiry into NHS litigation costs are urgently awaited, and that we still have a long way to go to establish and embed the joined-up patient safety learning culture across the NHS that is so urgently needed. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I thank my noble and learned friend for bringing this debate to the House, and I thank other noble Lords for their contributions. If my noble friend Lord Kirkhope felt slightly daunted by the group around him, I do not know how he thinks I feel—but I will do my best. I am pleased that the Health and Social Care Committee in the other place is conducting an inquiry into this important issue.
There were so many good and interesting questions put forward during this debate that I am going to start by answering them. If that takes up my full 12 minutes then, frankly, I would rather have the questions than the speech.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay asked what had been done to improve the response to harm by the NHS before patients reach the point of making a claim. We know that poor handling when an incident or complaint occurs, or in the aftermath, can be distressing for patients and families at a time when they are vulnerable. The Government have introduced a number of measures to support the NHS in order to improve the response to patients who are harmed, including establishing the statutory duty of candour, involving patients in investigations, following an incident implementation process to investigate and learn from incidents—for example, the HSIB—and establishing a new Patient Safety Commissioner.
My noble friend Lord Lansley talked about the drive to improvement. We need to focus on the culture within NHS organisations, which is a crucial factor in determining how welcoming we are and open to concerns, complaints and feedback. NHS organisations are there to help, and there must be an effective complaints system that can provide an appropriate remedy for a person making a complaint and enable an organisation subject to a complaint to learn from its mistakes in order to improve future services. There is an NHS-wide complaints system in place in which patients have a legal right to complain, to have that acknowledged within three days and properly investigated and to receive a timely response. If complainants remain unsatisfied, they can raise their complaint with the office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which will review the complaint and come to a final decision.
However, we need to learn from claims to make sure that harms are not repeated, as my noble friend Lord Lansley talked about. Learning is best undertaken at source and as close in time to the event as possible, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also mentioned. Our well-established safety and reporting system for all incidents facilitates rapid feedback. This means that claims are not the main source of learning for the NHS, because there are long time lags between incidents and claims, and the NHS wants to learn from all incidents, not only those where patients decide to bring a legal claim.
However, NHS Resolution is committed to helping the NHS learn from claims and is working directly with trusts to share learning and best practice across the NHS to drive safety improvement. This will help to minimise the potential for clinical errors that could lead to harm and possible future claims. An effective complaints system can provide an appropriate remedy for the person making the complaint and enable an organisation to learn from its mistakes and improve future services. There is an NHS-wide complaints system in place.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, talked about specific clinical negligence litigation reform options. This is a long-standing, complex and sensitive issue. There are a number of drivers of cost, and for this reason we believe there is no single or quick fix. The Government are committed to addressing this issue. To understand the drivers of costs and explore ways forward, in the 2020 spending review the Government committed to publishing a consultation. The department has no plans to implement the NHS Redress Act 2006, and several of the benefits it may have delivered are being implemented through other initiatives.
My noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate talked about “delay, deny and defend” and the NHS culture which simply increases costs. NHSR aims to resolve claims promptly and fairly and for the right amount. It also has a responsibility to defend unjustified claims to secure NHS resources. Most claims are settled without court proceedings and very few go to trial. NHSR is focused on early resolution of claims where possible, including use of mediation to settle claims and resolving claims before they enter the formal litigation process. In 2020-21, 74.7% of settled claims were resolved without formal court proceedings.
My noble friend Lord Kirkhope also mentioned punitive damages. I understand punitive damages are not usually awarded in this country. Our safety systems provide for prompt learning where mistakes may have occurred. My noble friend also mentioned claimant legal costs, which frequently exceed damages for lower-value claims. That is the reason why government have proposed fixed recoverable costs, and to consider the Civil Justice Council proposals. We will consult on the next steps shortly.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley that the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts produces useful incentives for better safety. The NHS maternity incentive scheme has produced important improvements in safety across the country’s maternity services. My noble friend also talked about the NHS Redress Act. The maternity investigations undertaken by HSIB replace the local investigations that trusts are required to undertake for all serious incidents and identify the contributory factors that have led to harm, or the potential for harm, to patients. The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch works closely with families to identify what went wrong and produces a final report, which it shares with the family and the trust, highlighting safety recommendations with the intention of preventing future similar events.
The department expects trusts to implement these recommendations in addition to the investigations. Trusts receive ongoing support, training and professional development in patient and family engagement through the programme. This includes how healthcare professionals can work sensitively and effectively with patients and families, and enhanced bereavement training. As of 30 September 2021, the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch has received 3,475 referrals, of which 2,303 have progressed to full investigations that will soon be completed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked about an individual case. I empathise with the person involved. Obviously, I cannot comment on individual cases, but I want to reassure noble Lords that we are working to tackle these issues. We are doing so by improving safety, for example by publishing the first ever patient safety strategy to create a safety and learning culture in the NHS. We are improving maternity safety, for example by investing an additional £95 million in maternity services to support recruitment. We are improving response to harm, for example by working with the ombudsman on standards for complaints handling. We are improving learning from things that go wrong, for example through the legislative changes that we are making to the HSIB, so that investigations help organisations learn. We are improving learning from claims, for example through the safety insight work of NHS Resolution.
We are enabling healthcare staff to speak up without fear—this is so important, because I think it has been the culture throughout the NHS for many years, and certainly when I was a nurse it is what I found over and again in the various hospitals that I worked in. It is important that staff should be able to speak up. We will establish speak-up guardians in every trust, supported by the national guardian. Improving early resolution of legal claims through mediation is also extremely important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also talked about the patient safety commissioner, which of course we talked about today in Oral Questions. I think I have nothing to add to that; anybody who was present for Oral Questions will know what I said. A campaign to fill the commissioner position is due to be launched later this year, in line with the public appointments process, and we expect to appoint the commissioner in the first half of 2022.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, talked about the importance of the Ockenden report. We are investing £95.6 million in maternity services to target the three overarching themes identified in the first Ockenden report: workforce numbers, training and development programmes to support culture and leadership, and strengthening board assurance and surveillance to identify issues earlier. Significant safety measures have been introduced in the past decade, including the NHS patient safety strategy.
The noble Baroness also talked about midwives’ evidence that improving patient safety and reducing avoidable harm is the best way to reduce litigation costs. Of course, that is true, and we must carry on doing that.
I have only two minutes left—there is never long enough, I am afraid. We recognise the importance of listening to patients. As I have said, we are appointing a new patient safety commissioner to promote the safety of patients and to champion their views, particularly in relation to medicines and medical devices, and we are looking to build on successes through the health and safety Bill. We want to establish an arm’s-length body to continue the much-lauded work of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch.
We announced £9.4 million of funding in the 2020 spending review to improve maternity services, including pilots to reduce the incidence of birth-related brain injuries. Some £95 million of funding will also boost workforce numbers and support culture and leadership in maternity.
The department is working intensively with the Ministry of Justice, other government departments and NHS Resolution on this complex and sensitive issue. In the 2020 spending review, the Government committed to publishing a consultation on it. While work is ongoing, I am not able to elaborate further, but we look forward to seeing the result.
I extend my thanks again to my noble and learned friend and to everybody else who contributed to this debate. If I have not answered all the questions, I will of course write to noble Lords, but I thank them for airing this debate today.
Financial Fraud: Vulnerable People
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharkey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect vulnerable people from financial fraud.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, there do not appear to be any definite figures for the amount and extent of fraud in the UK. There is, however, general agreement that it is very, very large, that it is growing rapidly in volume and sophistication and that it can ruin people’s lives. The CPS reckons that fraud is now the most commonly experienced crime in England and Wales, with 5 million offences in the first half of this year. That is a rise of 32% on the same period last year—and all these figures, alarmingly large as they are, may well understate the case. The National Crime Agency says that fewer than 20% of cases of fraud are reported, with many victims too embarrassed to make a report and perhaps, in the financial sector, too fearful of damaging their reputation.
The question we are dealing with this afternoon asks what the Government are doing to protect vulnerable consumers from financial fraud. The FCA defines “vulnerable” as
“some-one who, due to their personal circumstances is especially susceptible to detriment, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care.”
The FCA also lists some of those circumstances. They include physical and mental health problems, financial problems, life events and the lack of capability and/or confidence when dealing with finances. In truth, the list probably covers most people at some point in their life. But it is clear that the young, the elderly and the digitally innocent will be at significant risk. Not surprisingly, these groups are the frequent targets of fraudsters.
Also not surprisingly, fraud has moved heavily online: some 85% of all fraud in the first half of last year was cyber-enabled and 50% of adults were exposed to fraudulent ads each month. Many of these ads are carried by social media and many promote investment scams. They often operate by mimicking a genuine website such as HMRC’s or a bank’s. They also operate by placing ads on online platforms. Last week the Times reported that TSB data showed that seven in 10 victims of investment scams were targeted through Instagram alone.
Of all the investment scams reported to TSB to the end of August this year, scams based on Instagram accounted for 62%, on Snapchat 11%, on Google 10% and on Facebook 8%. That is a 70% score for Mark Zuckerberg and Meta. Since then, Google has all but eliminated scam adverts on its search engine. It did this simply by introducing rules that required all financial advertisers to prove that they were authorised by the FCA. TSB has had no reports of people falling victim to fraud through Google since the end of August. Instagram and Facebook have not followed suit. Can the Minister say what pressure is being brought to bear on Meta by the Government? Why should Meta be allowed to profit from scam ads and expose its members to a direct risk of fraud?
It is clear that the Government understand the seriousness and scale of the problem of financial fraud, and they have made some very significant interventions. Last month they established the Joint Fraud Taskforce, a private and public sector partnership, to focus on issues considered too difficult for a single organisation to manage alone. It is to be hoped that the new organisation will be able to plot a clear course through the jungle of agencies and regulators with interests and responsibilities in the area. It might even be able to take a leading role, so perhaps the Minister could tell us a little more about the objectives and working methods of the new task force, what targets it has and to whom it is accountable?
The Home Office has also published three new fraud charters, for the retail banking, telecoms and accountancy sectors. The Payment Systems Regulator has published a voluntary code for the reimbursement of victims of authorised push-payment fraud. Not all banks have signed up to the code. As a consequence, the Government now plan to legislate to make reimbursement mandatory. All this is welcome, as is the new inclusion of online fraud measures in the Draft Online Safety Bill.
However, there is still considerable work to be done. One of the reasons for the establishment of the Joint Fraud Taskforce was the existence of many agencies and regulators with at least some responsibility in this area. I counted at least six, and there may be more. That excludes the gatekeeper, Action Fraud, which is a reporting system—the people you contact to report a fraud and who then pass on the report to other agencies so that they may take action.
Action Fraud is critical to the success of the whole system. However, in July 2019, the Times published the findings of its undercover investigation of the unit, which found that the failings of Action Fraud had been well known for years. Right from its hotline going live in 2013, Ministers had to admit that 2,500 online reports were not processed correctly due to a fault in the IT system. In 2015, the firm operating the Action Fraud call centre in Manchester went bust, leaving fraud victims waiting even longer to get through. In 2019, an undercover Times reporter exposed call handlers mocking victims as “morons” and misleading them into thinking their reports were being taken seriously when most were never looked at again.
As a result of the Times investigation, Sir Craig Mackey, a retired police chief, reviewed the organisation. He found that both Action Fraud and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau were
“significantly hampered by an operating system that is not fully functional and their resourcing levels have not kept pace with increased reporting”.
He also found that Action Fraud failed to answer a third of the calls made to it. A year later, it was announced that steps would be taken to revamp the failed Action Fraud hotline. Police chiefs were looking for a new company to run it. That was a year ago. Can the Minister say why it took so long to take remedial action? Has a new contract been awarded and, if so, to whom?
Action Fraud, or some properly working equivalent, is vital to the fight against fraud, but as recently as this June, Martin Lewis described Action Fraud as “pointless” and said the organisation lacked the necessary funding to tackle criminals. Is Martin Lewis wrong? What reassurance can the Minister give that we now have in place an organisation that is properly run, properly funded and fit for purpose?
Reporting fraud is critical, but so is prevention. In this area, much needs to be done to rein in the social media platforms. As Martin Lewis said recently in evidence to the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill:
“Don’t let them off the hook. We need to make big tech responsible”.
We could make a start by making Meta follow Google. We should make it ban ads for financial services by advertisers that cannot prove that they are authorised by the FCA.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I really came to this debate as a spectator, because I wanted to hear the Government’s response to the excellent issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. However, there is one aspect of the way the issue was posed which gave me pause for thought. The way in which it has been framed makes me think that there is a wider issue involved.
The problems of financial fraud affect everyone, in the sense that the noble Lord reflected in his Question. I truly believe that we are all vulnerable. Characterising a subset of people as vulnerable implies that maybe the rest do not need to worry, but in one way or another, at some stage of our lives, we are all vulnerable. Those of us who have an arrogant view of our own capabilities are probably even more vulnerable than those who know their weaknesses.
Whatever is done in this area has to be part of a wider assessment of what the Government can do to provide protection. What leads on from that is that taking action on fraud is too late; action is required before the fraud takes place. The problem we have is that the system is a commercial one, in which a lot of money is involved. It is hardly surprising that fraud and crime will occur; crime goes to where the money is. We have a systemic problem of fraud; it is part of the natural operation of the system that it will arise, so action really needs to be taken much more down the line than after the event, when people suffer. It is at the early stage where the most effective action could or should be taken.
Of course, we have to talk in this context about online fraud, and we look forward to debates on the online safety Bill. The situation has been worsened by the pandemic, with our reliance on online means of communication and commerce increasing, so the opportunities for fraud have increased with it. My own interest is almost inevitably in pension fraud, which is the area that I am most familiar with. It is clear that an awful lot of fraud that occurs in this area is unreported, because people do not know or do not find out until it is too late—or they do know, but they are ashamed and feel foolish. I am not as familiar with other areas of financial fraud, but my assumption is that it is broadly the same there.
The issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on the plethora of regulators is one that I very much hope that the Government will address. I am really here to hear the response from the Minister, which I look forward to with some interest.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on securing this short debate on what is becoming an increasingly serious problem, as he so eloquently set out. I at last detect that the Government are starting to take it more seriously, and that is greatly to be welcomed, but we have a very long way to go.
This debate is about protecting vulnerable people from fraud, but I make a similar point to the noble Lord, Lord Davies. The reality is that we are all at risk from fraud. The impact of fraud is not only financial; it can leave people feeling stupid, ashamed and under attack, as they are continuously bombarded with emails, calls and texts, leading to serious anxiety and depression. That can be especially true of people who are more sophisticated; they can feel particularly stupid, which is unfair, and may not report it because of that feeling of shame. A large proportion of fraud is not reported. Nobody should feel shame about having been scammed; fraudsters are very clever at finding vulnerabilities.
Why is it so easy for fraudsters? I think the simple truth is that there is a whole range of parties who facilitate it, and who have no incentive to prevent it. Here are just a few examples. We have already heard about social media and other tech giants, which are paid by fraudsters to advertise fake investment or pension deals, as well as providing the platforms that allow fraudsters to contact and groom potential victims. The obvious question for the Minister is why the Government have agreed to include user-generated fraud in the online safety Bill but not frauds where the companies have actually been paid by the fraudsters. I read just this morning that the Prime Minister has said that the Bill will force the tech giants to remove adverts that promote people smuggling. If we can do that, why on earth can we not also force them to remove fraudulent investment adverts? This is just wrong, and I urge the Government to think again about this obvious gap. The tech giants should have a clear duty of care and liability to their users for any fraud that they facilitate.
Telecoms companies enable the scammers to bombard us with calls and texts. We probably all suffer this every day. They have no incentive to stop it—they are paid by the scammers for those calls and texts. Further, they continue to allow the spoofing of caller IDs. It is not only being scammed that is traumatic; the feeling of being constantly under attack causes a lot of anxiety. When will we see action to reduce this torrent of calls and texts? Can we not use the Telecommunications (Security) Bill to that effect? You could put out regulations under that to have a go at solving this problem.
The banks provide the means by which the scammers receive the stolen money. Some banks have made real efforts—in particular, the Confirmation of Payee process is a major step in the right direction—but fraudsters are still able to transfer the stolen money and only a relatively small proportion is reimbursed under the voluntary code. It is shocking that we are not told which banks are behaving worst in this respect. Why do we not publish those league tables?
It may be that the payments system itself aids fraudsters: instantaneous payments allow the money to be whisked away through multiple accounts and abroad, or into untraceable cryptocurrency, before the victim has even realised they are a victim, by which time it is too late to do anything about it. Have the Government considered slowing payments down, particularly when making a first payment to a new payee?
As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, mentioned, I understand that the Government are at last proposing to make reimbursement mandatory for authorised push payment frauds. However, I have said before that it would make more sense to make the receiving bank—the bank that has handled the stolen money for the fraudster —liable for repaying the money. That would give a real incentive to banks to stop their accounts being misused by fraudsters or their mules. On that latter point, I would be interested to hear from the Minister what the Government are proposing to do about those mules, who are often young people who themselves have been conned into laundering the stolen money.
Whatever we do, it is critical that any victim reimbursement process is clear and simple and has a single point of contact so that it does not add to the trauma that victims experience. The Financial Ombudsman Service has been ruling against banks in over 70% of appeals, which shows that the current system is simply not working. Banks try to push the blame back on the victim, which just adds to the trauma. My own view is that the victim should apply to, and be reimbursed by, their bank, which should recover automatically from the receiving bank, and it would be for the receiving bank to attempt to recover from the fraudster or those who have facilitated the fraud—the social media or telecoms company, or whoever. Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act works broadly in a similar way. Could that not be a precedent?
Why are so few frauds investigated or prosecuted? Again, this adds to the trauma; it is traumatic if you do not feel that you are being taken seriously by the authorities. I suspect that the poor investigation and prosecution record is down to a combination of insufficient police resources, inadequate specialist training and a lack of appropriate technology. According to the Victims’ Commissioner, only about 2% of police resources is directed against fraud, despite—according to the Government’s own numbers—fraud being 42% of all crime against individuals. That is a huge disparity: 2% to 42%. Action Fraud would be better named “Inaction Fraud”—it is farcical. What plans do the Government have to make improvements in all those areas?
Fraud is also covered by a whole range of government departments: DCMS, the Home Office, the Treasury, DWP and the Foreign Office, among others. I wonder whether that fragmentation contributes to the problem. Would it not be helpful to have one Minister who was given full oversight to ensure that fraud is covered holistically, not just piecemeal?
Finally, I am delighted that yesterday the House approved my proposal for a committee of special inquiry into digital fraud. I record my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Vaizey of Didcot, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for their support in that process. I hope that the committee will be able to provide valuable insight into the problem and to make practical and achievable recommendations to assist the Government in solving this scourge, and I hope the Government will be receptive.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, there is one great advantage of there being a limited number of speakers in a short debate, which is that it really does not make a whole lot of sense for someone in my winding position to go and repeat everything that has just been so well said. I particularly want to raise two issues that I think have not been covered here, and will then make a final comment.
The first is the regulatory perimeter, which determines which activities the FCA regulates and therefore when it will or will not tackle financial misbehaviour by financial firms. The perimeter sets a boundary on regulated activities and has been given as the reason why the FCA has failed to act in so many scandals: the asset-stripping scandal of the RBS Global Restructuring Group, which destroyed small businesses and their owners by undervaluing their assets in order to seize them; the mis-selling of interest rate caps to small businesses; the abuse of the Libor-setting system, which mispriced trillions of loans across the globe; and endless investment scandals, of which London Capital & Finance is just one of the more recent.
I join the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Vaux, in saying that ordinary people, even savvy people, usually have absolutely no idea that the financial product promoted or sold to them is unregulated, particularly since other activities carried out by the same firm may indeed be regulated. Pretty much everybody other than a highly sophisticated multinational with a phalanx of lawyers is exposed to financial fraud in one way or another today. Of course, we need some special protection for people defined as vulnerable, as described by my noble friend Lord Sharkey. But, as others have said, today everyone needs financial products just to participate in normal life, so rules based on caveat emptor—buyer beware—which is the backbone of the current system, are simply not good enough.
I have long argued that regulating activities is a charter for mis-selling. If the FCA authorises any activity carried out by a financial company, it should regulate all its activities so that the line is clear. In other words, regulate the firm and all the activities it is involved with. Other countries do it without serious problems.
Following the LC&F debacle, the FCA’s relatively new CEO Nikhil Rathi said that the FCA would change its approach to tackle more effectively the issues of fraud risks that sit outside the perimeter of regulation, but he gave no detail. Will the Minister tell us whether there has been progress? Mr Rathi also insisted that he needed more investment and resources to take on the task. Will he get them? At one time the senior managers regime was touted as a possible tool for tackling such fraud and abuse of clients, but the FCA has used that with such deference that it no longer receives any respect. Will the FCA get new duties and powers?
My second issue is that of whistleblowers and the dreadful way we treat them in the UK. The United States is probably the exemplar of how to value financial whistleblowers. Regulators and enforcement agencies in the US have told me that whistleblowers are the citizens’ army that enables them to clean up and deter bad behaviour in an industry where money creates so many temptations. They are the canaries in the mine, to pick up the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Vaux: early action is absolutely critical when fraud begins to arise.
Financial whistleblowers in the US are protected from both retaliation and financial ruin. California has just enacted another step, a new law called “Silenced No More”, to prohibit the use of non-disclosure agreements that are so often embedded in any employee settlement as a gagging clause. Now the EU is moving in the US direction. The UK, once a leader in protecting whistleblowers, is now one of the most risky developed countries in which to speak out. I have complained before that whistleblowers to the FCA are assumed to be troubled people, not vital informers. They are triaged by call handlers trained in dealing with complaints and with minimal financial knowledge. In contrast, in the US a senior financial investigator does the triage to capture early and critical leads.
The protection that the UK regulator offers a whistleblower is simply anonymity: it will not disclose their name to their employer. But most employee whistleblowers are easily identified both by their specialist knowledge and because most will have raised concerns with line managers and others before turning to the regulator. The regulator then stands aside and offers no support if they are penalised, demoted or fired, and will not even give evidence to an employment tribunal—and woe betide the whistleblower who has to go public and reveal themselves to the press, or even to give evidence to Parliament, because the regulator will not act. The norm for whistleblowers in the UK is years of legal battle and financial and career ruin. Even when settlements are made, typically they rarely cover the extortionate costs of bringing the various cases and attempting to resist retaliation.
Whistleblowing protection, little though it is in the UK, is limited to employees. Advisers, clients and accountants—indeed, anyone else—have no protection at all. I heard just this morning from an IFA who has identified potential fraud at a major insurance company and has been unable to report it to the FCA whistle- blowing team, although they attempted to do so, because he/she—I will disguise their identity—is not an employee. If he/she speaks out, he/she will effectively be put out of business as an IFA.
I have a Private Member’s Bill before the House to create an office of the whistleblower to turn this issue around. But I am not precious. What I want to hear from the Minister today is that the Government will now take serious action and come up with legislation of their own if they dislike mine. If we are going to end financial fraud, we have to unleash all the power of that citizens’ army I talked about.
I will make one last comment, because the next piece of legislation that will be used to deal with at least a subset of these issues—online financial fraud—is the draft Online Safety Bill. I have read the various briefings and it is completely beyond me to understand why actions that facilitate fraud through adverts or cloned websites will not be prohibited by the Bill. I cannot understand why, in the draft, paid-for advertising is explicitly carved out of the scope of the Bill. I have no idea what pressures were brought, but frankly the Government ought to dismiss them, and I would say to the Minister that if she and her colleagues do not make changes to the Bill, I think I can guarantee that both Houses of Parliament will. We have had enough of fraud and we need strong, clear action and leadership. I hope the Minister in her answers today will indicate that that will happen.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for securing this debate. I am afraid I will be repeating some of the figures that have been quoted, but most of my comments will be directed to what has or has not happened as far as the Government are concerned during the period of the pandemic.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, the Crown Prosecution Service has said that fraud is now the most commonly experienced crime in England and Wales. Using data from the crime survey for England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics reported that there were 5 million fraud offences in the year ending June 2021, and that this represented a 32% increase compared with the previous year. There were large rises in consumer and retail fraud, advance fee fraud and fraud that just comes under the category of “other fraud”.
In contrast, the ONS highlighted that crimes such as theft and robbery saw falls during periods of lockdown. It said that the data may show
“fraudsters taking advantage of behaviour changes related to the pandemic”,
such as increased online shopping and increased savings. Some 26% of offences resulted in the loss of money or property with no or only partial reimbursement. The National Fraud Intelligence Bureau reported a 36% rise in fraud offences in the year ending June 2021 compared with the previous year, which included a 34% increase in online shopping and auction fraud and a 51% increase in financial investment fraud.
Some people are of course more at risk of becoming a victim of financial fraud—for example, individuals with a mental health problem or dementia. People who have experienced mental health problems are three times more likely than the rest of the population—23% versus 8%—to have been a victim of an online scam. Age UK has highlighted the impact of fraud on older people in England and Wales and, based on an analysis of Crime Survey for England and Wales data between 2017 and 2019, has said that an older person becomes a victim of fraud every 40 seconds. Age UK has said that alongside financial losses, becoming a victim can also
“seriously affect quality of life and wellbeing”,
with many people experiencing a deep sense of shame, embarrassment, anxiety and loss of independence following a scam—and that of course often leads to non-reporting.
The people engaged in such financial fraud pray on us all, as has been said, but particularly on the vulnerable. It is a premeditated, carefully planned, well-resourced and systematic activity, with those involved knowing precisely what a devastating impact they are having on their victims. They deserve everything they get and more, if and when—and it is not often enough—they are brought to justice.
I have no doubt that in their response the Government will talk about the draft Online Safety Bill, the fraud action plan, the relaunch of the Joint Fraud Taskforce and an apparent government intention to legislate to allow the Payment Systems Regulator to make reimbursement mandatory where a personal or business is tricked into sending money to a fraudster posing as a genuine payee. However, the extent to which proposed legislation, plans and taskforces will address and reduce all the different types of financial fraud and the different ways and channels through which they are perpetrated, as well as providing full financial protection for victims, remains to be seen.
I hope that in their response the Government will set out the specific targets for reducing financial fraud and protecting victims financially, which the various measures that I have no doubt we will hear about in their response are expected to deliver. Certainly to date the Government’s efforts to address rising levels of fraud, not least online fraud, have been woefully inadequate, particularly during the current pandemic. Reductions in police personnel during the last decade have only made matters worse.
I tabled a Written Question in May last year asking the Government
“whether they have broadcast advertisements to warn the public, in particular those who are vulnerable, of scams related to the Covid-19 pandemic; if not, why not; and what plans they have to provide advice about how to avoid becoming a victim of such scams.”
The Written Answer—not from the Home Office—said:
“The government has not broadcast advertisements to specifically raise awareness of scams related to the Covid-19 pandemic.”
The reply went on to say:
“HMG believes the best way to ensure the public’s safety is to make sure that they know how to protect themselves … so that the public know how to spot a scam and protect themselves from them.”
The reply continued:
“We have recently launched a GOV.UK page on coronavirus related fraud and cybercrime including easy-to-follow steps for people to better protect themselves as well as signposting all relevant advice and tips.”
For this Government, too often a GOV.UK page is the remedy to all problems.
I thought at the time that that reply reflected a fair degree of complacency. Now, though, we can ask the question: has the Government’s strategy for protecting the public, particularly those who are vulnerable, from scams during the pandemic been successful? The figures that I have already quoted suggest otherwise.
In addition, according to UK Finance, the public were conned out of £753.9 million in the first six months of this year alone, up 30% on the same period in 2020. The banks have already warned that the period up to Christmas and new year is likely to be the “busiest ever” for criminals looking to trap unsuspecting victims as the pandemic has pushed shoppers online.
It is of course a matter for the Government what they say in their response. But I hope that, if they are going to tell us what they intend and plan to do, and how much money they have spent and will spend, they will also answer the question: why was more effective action not taken to warn the public and particularly vulnerable people of the increased danger of financial fraud from scams and fraudsters during the Covid-19 pandemic? I do not wish to suggest for a single moment that broadcasting advertisements raising awareness of scams during the pandemic—which is what I asked about in my question—would have been the answer to all the problems that have materialised; clearly, it would not. But the Government’s approach has been very complacent and, frankly, it is many members of the public, including the most vulnerable, who have paid the price during the Covid pandemic, both metaphorically and literally.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for securing this very important debate and for all the very valuable points he has raised. I of course agree that we should protect people from fraud, particularly vulnerable people who are often targeted by callous and ruthless criminals. As he said, fraud is now the most common crime type in the country, accounting for some 40% of offences in the year ending June 2021, according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales. It is estimated there were 3.9 million victims of fraud in the same period.
As the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Davies of Brixton, said, we are all vulnerable to it. I almost became a victim of it a couple of weeks ago. It was not obvious that I was being scammed at first glance, but it nearly happened to me. Of course, the impact extends beyond financial losses. As the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Sharkey, said, the emotional and long-lasting harm that people can suffer is horrendous. Fraudsters can be very sophisticated and will exploit any means they can to trick innocent people out of their hard-earned money.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is absolutely right to point out the vulnerabilities during Covid, with so many people at home online, as opposed to out and about. For those who are very vulnerable, those impacts can be felt all the more, so we are focused on stopping unscrupulous fraudsters in their tracks and supporting victims so they can recover and protect themselves in future.
We are aiming to step up the whole-system response to fraud, which is the right way. While it is vital that we crack down on criminals behind scams, fixing the law enforcement response is just one part of the solution, as noble Lords have pointed out during today’s debate. To disrupt organised criminals and safeguard the most vulnerable, we need to prevent it from happening in the first place, as noble Lords have said. But we cannot, as government, do it alone. That is why the Home Office is working across government, law enforcement and the private sector—the private sector is really important in this—to better protect the public, reduce the impact on victims and ensure fraudsters are brought to justice.
To improve our collective response, we are leading work on the development of a comprehensive fraud action plan, which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, knew I would mention, and we will it publish early next year. This will commit key partners in the public and private sectors to do more to tackle fraud. The plan will focus on public engagement to ensure that everyone, including those most at risk, understands the threat and therefore how best to protect themselves.
We know that those most vulnerable to fraud can become repeat victims—that is the horror of this. Despicably, they are placed on what is called a “suckers list” that is then sold on by ruthless fraudsters. It is essential that we improve victim support and make sure that everyone gets the information and help they need to protect themselves.
That is why we as the Home Office are working with the City of London Police to deliver a nationwide rollout of the National Economic Crime Victim Care Unit. It provides an important additional layer of support for people who report a fraud or cybercrime to Action Fraud—on which, more later—where their cases are not investigated by local police, and helps prevent repeat victimisation. The unit is currently supporting 20 forces, with a further rollout planned. As of October this year, it has helped support more than 160,000 victims, and since the start of this year has assisted in recovering almost £1.5 million that people had lost.
It is also very important that we bolster the local support available to vulnerable victims. To do that, the Home Office is supporting National Trading Standards in the rollout of fraud multiagency safeguarding hubs in England and Wales. These local hubs will improve the quality of care for fraud victims by bringing together multiple agencies that can work together to support them, making it easier for victims to navigate their way to getting the help they need. The national rollout follows a successful pilot in Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire during which more than £8 million was saved for individuals and society.
We continue to work extensively with the private sector effectively to “design out” fraud and stop vulnerable people being targeted in the first place. In October, we published three voluntary charters with the retail banking, telecommunications and accountancy sectors. These are partnership agreements to find innovative solutions that will drive down the level of fraud. New initiatives include: a pilot dynamic direct debit system that would introduce a banking authorisation step in applications for new telecommunications contracts, including mobile phone contracts, that have been applied for fraudulently or used for fraudulent purposes; a cross-sector plan to protect customers who have been subject to a data breach from becoming victims of fraud; and leveraging new technology to tackle the fraudulent practice of sending fake company text messages, known as “smishing”.
The progress of these charters will be closely monitored by the Joint Fraud Taskforce, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, which is chaired by the Security Minister and brings together senior partners from across the public and private sectors. We also intend to develop a suite of charters with other sectors that have a role to play in protecting vulnerable people from fraud, including tech and social media firms.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and others talked about the harms of the online world. The online safety Bill will provide further protection against fraud. Companies in scope will be required to take action to tackle fraud where it is facilitated through user-generated content. We expect this to have a particular impact on frauds such as romance scams, which cause significant psychological harm to victims.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, might stop shaking his head when I say to him and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that we are also considering whether to impose tougher regulation on online advertising, because that may well be the gap that he talked about. We have heard the strength of feeling in the House and in the public domain. The Joint Committee on the Bill will report shortly, and we will examine its recommendations on this issue extremely carefully. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport—the DCMS—will also consult shortly on a range of proposals to tackle harms associated with advertising. It may have been the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, or the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who commented on Google versus Facebook/Meta. I commend Google for what it has achieved. As for discussions with Facebook, I have lost count of the number of discussions that I have had. One thing that we said way back in the day was, “Look, if you don’t sort some of these problems out, we’re going to legislate to sort them out”—and this is where we are now.
On scam calls, as part of our response to fraud the Government are working with the telecommunications industry to tackle telephone-enabled fraud and break the business model of the criminals behind it. Through our joint telecommunications sector charter, providers have agreed a nine-point action plan to tackle fraud through scam calls. This includes commitments to identify and implement techniques to block scam calls and smishing texts. To protect those most vulnerable to telephone scams, DCMS provided £1 million over three years to National Trading Standards to fund the rollout of call-blocking devices to people across the UK. These help those most in need and provide 99% protection from nuisance and scam calls.
On phishing and smishing, we have been working to reduce the threat of phishing emails that can reach the most vulnerable. Last year the National Cyber Security Centre launched its suspicious email reporting service, which of course I encourage the public to use via report@phishing.gov.uk.
The noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Vaux, both mentioned APP scams, authorised push-payment fraud, where victims are tricked into handing over their money. This targets the most vulnerable with increasingly sophisticated scams that can have such a devastating impact on their lives. The Government are clear that the public should not be left out of pocket through no fault of their own. We have been working with the financial services industry to help tackle APP fraud, including through the implementation of initiatives such as Confirmation of Payee and the creation of the contingent reimbursement model code. Most high-street banks have now signed up to this voluntary code, which was designed to offer increased protection to the most vulnerable. Victims who use these banks will be entitled to reimbursement when they have taken the required steps to protect themselves, or if it is not reasonable to expect them to do so.
We really welcome the work that the industry has undertaken to date, including through this code, but it has clear limitations, including disparity in how different banks are interpreting their obligations and the fact that it does not cover all providers. As such, the Government are now engaging with the Payment Systems Regulator, the PSR, and industry on what more can be done to better protect customers. We welcome the PSR’s recent consultation on APP scams, which set out potential measures to reduce their impact, including mandatory reimbursement of victims. We now intend to legislate to address any barriers to mandatory reimbursement when parliamentary time allows.
Faster Payments, the UK’s real-time low-value interbank payments system, has been a great UK success story. In 2008 the UK was one of the first countries to launch a 24/7 real-time payments system, which now processes more than 3 billion payments a year. However, despite the speed and resilience it offers, banks already intervene in a variety of ways when they suspect fraud, including delaying the processing of payments and contacting customers. At this point I must give a shout-out to my bank, Lloyds, which has done that to me before.
On law enforcement and action fraud, we continue to work closely with law enforcement in line with recommendations from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. This includes working with City of London Police on a refresh and upgrade of the current action fraud service to improve victim experience and the law enforcement response.
To the question from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on the contract, as I said, we are working on plans to refresh and upgrade the current action fraud service, and the competition to find a new commercial partner to deliver that service was launched in July this year. We expect the service to be improved in both usability and effectiveness, which noble Lords have pointed to. Also since last year, City of London Police have increased the number of staff in their call centre, and recent performance data has been quite encouraging, suggesting that between 94% and 98% of victims were satisfied with their service.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made a point about the FCA. HM Treasury continues to work closely with the FCA to ensure that its duties and powers are sufficient to meet the threats in the financial sector. When I thought about this debate and saw the noble Baroness’s name, I thought, “She’s going to ask about whistleblowing—but in what capacity?” This year, the FCA launched its In Confidence, With Confidence campaign to encourage individuals working in financial services to report potential wrongdoing to the FCA, reminding them of the confidentiality that is in place. I totally agree with her on her point about non-disclosure agreements; that is one that we have discussed before.
Finally, on pension fraud, it is totally unacceptable and devastating that anyone should be cheated out of their savings and their plans for retirement. The Government are absolutely committed to protecting people from pension scams and pursuing those who perpetuate them. In the last two years, we have introduced a ban on pensions cold-calling and changes to the pension scheme registration process to stop fraudsters exploiting pensioners. The inclusion on fraud in the scope of the online safety Bill will also have a strong impact on preventing investment frauds.
I think that I have responded to all the points; if I have not, I shall write to noble Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, once more for securing this important debate, and thank the not too many noble Lords who have taken part, because I think that has made it an effective discussion.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Minister said that she would respond to any questions that she had not replied to. Will that include my question: do the Government really think that they did enough to protect vulnerable people during the pandemic, bearing in mind the substantial increase in the number of fraud cases?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I most certainly will get back to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on those statistics, and any facts and figures I have for him for during that period, because it must have been a very vulnerable time for an awful lot of people.
National Infrastructure Commission: Baseline Report
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to address the concerns in the report by the National Infrastructure Commission, The Second National Infrastructure Assessment: Baseline Report, published in November.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to be able to introduce this short debate on the national infrastructure assessment. As noble Lords will know, my noble friend Lord Liddle has had to scratch for transport reasons; he asked me to pass on his apologies. I declare an interest as an officer of the All-Party Group on Infrastructure and a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
This is a really good time to debate the infrastructure assessment. It is a baseline report, as we all know; it is the basis for the future work the NIC will be doing. It is also really good that the Government have expanded its remit to cover the transition to net zero and climate resistance, as we have been speaking about that a great deal in your Lordships’ House.
I will try to cover briefly where we are today on infrastructure, where we should be today—if I think that is different—and where we might be in 30 years’ time. Somewhere in this report, it states that we need
“bold action, stable plans and long term funding”,
which sounds just wonderful but might not always happen. At least we are trying.
The baseline report lists some of the successes. It is worth reminding ourselves that broadband circulation around the country has been good in most places and renewable electricity is getting better—we have spoken about electric vehicles. I question how much better flooding has got; drought resilience is not something we need to look at this week, but so be it. On the other hand, some good things have happened there as well.
One of the most important things the NIC has been asked to do is social research. It says that it has got better between 2017 and 2021, which is good news. I suspect there is still a great deal of work to be done there, particularly on things such as clean water and sewage, and probably on energy supplies as well. It also says that some things are not going quite so well, including emissions from electricity and heat, which are still too high—I think we know all that. Emissions from transport have not been declining; I will come back to that, as that is very serious. Asset maintenance is not so good. Five million properties are currently at risk of flooding—that is serious, and is still going on today, as we have recently heard. There is also the pollution from water and sewage. Then there is urban transport connectivity, which I will come on to.
One of the most interesting things which has come out of a briefing from the Institution of Civil Engineers is that only 10% of British adults think that the right conditions are in place for infrastructure to transition to net zero—10% is not very good. Only 31% of British adults think that the Government have a plan for net zero; they should be worried about that, and perhaps the Minister will have views on it.
However, going forward, I hope that the NIC and the Government will take forward some of these issues. I will cover just one or two of them. I will start with net zero, which noble Lords have been debating quite frequently. Other topics include transport, rail electrification—that is in the new policy document from the Government; whether it is enough we can debate—towns, transport within towns, the 20-minute city, which I shall come on to, and new road building and whether we should be doing it. We should not forget that, if every car becomes electrically driven in a few years’ time, there will still be traffic jams. They will be electric traffic jams rather than petrol or diesel ones, but they will still be traffic jams—and, again, that is why I think public transport is so important.
The NIC says that road and rail freight seems to be going quite well, especially with decarbonisation. I would question that, actually, because I think that the technology of making heavy goods vehicles not use diesel or petrol is still in its infancy. I used to be chairman of the Rail Freight Group, and rail freight has had quite a good time over the pandemic. But there needs to be an awful lot more, and really we should be electrifying the railways and trying to cover freight moving in the last mile or so to its destination, which we manifestly do not do at the moment unless we use petrol or diesel.
Turning to energy, there are problems with the sourcing of it, and with its distribution and use. Again, we have debated that frequently over the past few months. What worries me about that is that if we use electrical power to heat most of our homes, and we use electrical power to drive our transport, on road or rail—I think we have to leave air out of this, because it is a complete failure—the forecast is that we will need 10 times the amount of electrical energy that we have now. I view that as extremely serious. We can debate how it is generated, and whether it is a good thing to generate hydrogen from electricity or use electricity as it comes; that is another debate that has to come. We have another debate here on Monday evening about plug-in chargers and things like that. But the 10-times figure is one of the most serious issues we have to address.
Then there are a whole host of environmental issues. I was rather surprised that the NIC thinks that carbon capture and storage is a good idea, because I do not believe it has been demonstrated to work yet. How long will it last and what happens when it does not last any more? I may be being naive on that, but I am not convinced it is a proven technology.
The Government have an enormous amount of work to do on resilience, including on floods and storms —we had a debate about the storms in the north-east today—as well as on drought, energy, transport and the general quality of life. But what I do not understand is why we are still building on flood plains. It seems to be utterly crazy. We may be short of land—that is a different issue—but building on flood plains so that you get flooded is absolutely crazy. I am not going to speak any more about sewage, because we have talked enough about that.
However, it is interesting that the solution for Southern Water, which is one of the worst offenders and has been highly fined, is to sell the company to Macquarie bank, whose track record is that it owned Thames Water around 10 years ago and increased its debt by £2 billion and got fined £20 million itself. Does the Minister think Macquarie bank is the best possible investor to manage Southern Water and all the problems which we know it has had recently?
The last big issue, on the communities themselves, is that there has been a lot of talk recently about how far people want to travel to work, shop, go to school or whatever. Something called the 20-minute community is being talked about quite a lot. It does not just have to be in London or the suburbs around it; it can be anywhere. Maybe the NIC will start looking at something like this when it looks at the quality of life paper, which I believe will come out next year.
Finally, it is very easy to talk about building things—I am a civil engineer, so I love building things, if they are the right things. However, we also have to look at the cost and upset and everything of building new things compared with adapting existing things, which may cause less trouble and hassle. I will bring my remarks to a close. My last point is cost and deliverability. We all know the problems there, but building things small needs to be looked at. Couple that with the question of whether we will have to change our lifestyle as we go towards net zero or whether we can carry on the way we are—you can even drive to Waitrose for a box of matches.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for initiating this debate. The rules of politics and this House mean that I cannot formally call him a friend, but we have often found ourselves singing from similar hymn sheets in debates such as this. In particular, we focus on the central importance of rational economic decision-making in national life—we have certainly had some debates on HS2. We also sit on the same committee, where I am hugely grateful to him for the contribution he makes, as well as on the APPG on Infrastructure.
Adequate—preferably good—infrastructure is vital if an economy is to be able to operate effectively. Infrastructure in this sense includes communication, such as roads, rail, telephones and broadband, and utilities such as gas, electricity and water, which last covers both the necessity of adequate and pure supply and the risk of floods and drought. Some might say that adequate housing is another vital component of national infrastructure—here I should declare an interest as I am chair of your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee and we are currently conducting an inquiry into housing. But we do not need to split hairs. We all recognise that some entities constitute something reasonably described as infrastructure because they are required if economic ventures are to work. The Victorians —for whom I have a lot of admiration on the infra- structure side—understood that very well.
It is welcome that the importance of infrastructure has been recognised by the establishment of the National Infrastructure Commission, whose report we are considering today. It is under the leadership of Sir John Armitt, a very worthy chair—I know that because we served together at John Laing Construction when we were building Sizewell B in the 1990s. We might, in passing, wonder why it took so long to establish such an important body as the National Infrastructure Commission.
One answer to that question lies in a particular characteristic of infrastructure which separates it from other economic matters. In matters of infrastructure, a significant degree of national planning is necessary and desirable. In many cases, planning is not desirable; in most economic decisions the best course is to let those with ideas seek to put them into effect. If they are right then they will benefit substantially and so, by Adam Smith’s invisible hand, will the rest of us, to a lesser extent. The concept of Ministers and civil servants trying to decide what will succeed in the marketplace has rightly come to be regarded with derision. However, when it comes to, say, investment in train tracks or the electricity grid—or flooding and water resilience, in the circumstances of 2021—this is insufficient, as I think the noble Lord has explained very clearly, so a significant degree of planning is required.
For some of those contributing to today’s debate, all this theory might seem unnecessary. I say to them that they are wrong. Capitalism is the most effective method of economic advance ever discovered. Why has China become so rich? Because it has abandoned—in economic matters—the notions of communism and adopted, in a surprisingly pure form, those of capitalism. The shame is that it has limited its adoption of western ways to economic matters.
I come to the report before us. It is worthy, which is exactly what it ought to be. I have some quibbles. Thinking in terms of centuries or even decades, as we are bound to do on infrastructure, I do not think the emphasis on climate change will age entirely well. There are other challenges and of course innovation and changing weather patterns could alter matters by the time we get to the second half of the century, but we must certainly be more efficient and more careful in the use of our nation’s and the world’s resources in myriad different ways. It is wholly appropriate to assess matters in this long-term way and to look at both digital and physical aspects, as the report does so well. I welcome the report and the opportunity to debate longer-term infrastructure challenges, which is unusual but very important.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for giving us this excellent opportunity to debate these important issues. It is important to bear in mind that the Climate Change Committee has recently made the point that we as a nation are nowhere near restricting our CO2 emissions to the level that we need to achieve a 1.5 degree increase, which is what is needed. My comments today will concentrate entirely on transport-related issues.
Last week, we had the shapeshifting announcement of the integrated rail plan, which was slated across the north of England as a huge disappointment. The National Infrastructure Commission’s reports, statements and conclusions are important because they identify transport as the sector that has the most potential to reduce disparities in wealth across the country. The NIC concludes that urban transport connectivity is poor in many places and that the largest towns and cities have the worst connectivity, with congestion slowing journeys. It points out that improving urban mobility and reducing congestion can boost urban productivity and hence prosperity. That makes last week’s integrated rail plan, with its downgrading of the investment potential in the north of England, all the more worrying.
The NIC report points out that 33% of total UK emissions in 2019 were transport emissions. Of those transport emissions, two-thirds came from surface transport and one-third from aviation and shipping. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has already mentioned, since 1990 surface transport emissions have stubbornly remained at similar levels despite technological improvements. That has happened simply because there is far more traffic around.
Surface transport emissions come from road transport, of course, as well as rail. However, the number of passenger journeys on rail transport has more than doubled since 1990, but, at the same time, there has been a significant reduction in emissions from railways. We can see that a transition from car ownership to public transport is vital if we are to deal with emissions issues.
Within public transport, rail expansion is of course important, but it takes a while to build a railway; it is much quicker to get people on to buses and to improve a bus fleet from an environmental point of view. We have the technology to move to electric and hydrogen buses.
The Government’s bus strategy has welcome and ambitious aims, but the price tag that they have attached to it is far too modest. The first round of bids is in for funding, which is to be spent largely on zero-carbon buses. There are more than 70 local authorities. Roughly 40 of them have made bids. Four of them alone will mop up the total funding that has been made available. The Government promised us 4,000 zero-emission buses. That sounds really good, but we have to bear in mind that there are 38,000 buses on the road, so what will happen about the other 34,000? The Government still have a roads programme of £27 billion. A quarter of that amount, if spent on zero-emission buses, would deal with the whole problem.
Realistically, we cannot deal with this topic of transport without referring to the need for a stronger government lead in the transition to electric vehicles. Their target is fine, but there is as yet no path to it. Earlier this week in Grand Committee, we considered a modest SI that started to tackle the core problem: the infrastructure for charging EVs. The SI was simply about smart charging, so really it was just about stretching the grid as far as possible—and it was pretty optimistic in what was thought to be possible. Many EV owners have no possible access to charge points at their homes, so they rely on the public realm. It is essential that the right mix of speeds of chargers in the right locations is provided. People rapidly learn where those chargers are and what suits their needs, but the big psychological stumbling block still to be tackled is long-distance routes. People will not buy EVs unless they can rely on chargers being as easily accessible and available as diesel and petrol.
The SMMT has recently produced statistics. One charger is being installed for every 52 new electric vehicles. That is not a sustainable position. The really worrying statistic is that the ratio of vehicle charge points to plug-in vehicles has deteriorated by 31% in the last year. We have one of the worst ratios in major global EV markets, behind South Korea, the Netherlands, China, France, Belgium and Japan. This has to be fixed, and it needs not just money but government leadership in terms of a structure of regulation and leadership of the private sector for investment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Randerson, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on securing this debate and on his excellent introduction. This is an extremely wide subject of great importance to be covered in just a one-hour debate, but we have had some excellent contributions from all sides. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned road and rail connectivity, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, understands the national infrastructure network across the board and spoke eloquently.
Given the breadth of the baseline report, I shall concentrate on the areas within my spokesperson’s role—wastewater management and flooding. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. Before I do that, I will just mention the issue of access to gigabit-capable broadband. The increase of coverage to 85% connection across the UK is to be welcomed, and the target of 95% connection by 2026 sounds excellent. However, this masks the dark areas of the country where there is no connection and where this is unlikely to be remedied by 2026.
Remote rural areas, especially in the national parks and deep rural hamlets, suffer from poor or no connectivity. The numbers affected are small but should not be overlooked. They will be the children struggling to do the homework that their friends in towns are easily able to complete, and the farmers trying to fill in the innumerable Defra forms. We have seen in recent days how storms can so easily bring down power lines and, again, deep rural areas are the last to be reconnected. As there is no government rural strategy, and various Ministers have repeatedly stressed that one will not be forthcoming, I make a plea for these areas not to be forgotten in the gigabit connection programme.
I turn to flood resilience and wastewater. During the passage of the Environment Act, flood resilience and waste were debated fully. Communities up and down the country have been flooded more than once. The misery that flood-water brings is truly heartbreaking; the slime and smell caused by overflowing sewage systems is difficult to describe if you have not experienced it yourself. It can destroy a lifetime’s possessions, many having emotional ties. The Government are due to invest £5.6 billion over the next six years to reduce the risk of flooding. Is the Minister able to tell us where this money is likely to be invested and the areas of the country that will benefit from this investment? I expect it to be in areas where the most difference can be made for businesses and homes, but this is likely to leave some smaller communities still at risk.
Despite recognition of climate change and the effects of building on flood plains and tarmacking over green fields, local authorities still build houses in areas where doing so will increase the risk of flooding. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned this. Inadequate attention is often given to how surface-water drainage will be tackled through properly engineered SUDS. Urgent attention needs to be given to how surface-water management is dealt with to prevent increasing the risk of flooding. Can the Minister give reassurance on this aspect?
Also during the passage of the Environment Act, and twice this week during Oral Questions, the issue of raw sewage being discharged by water companies has been raised. Due to the excellent work of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, the Government have given commitments that water companies will in future have to be stringent in how they operate. There will be heavy fines for companies that discharge wastewater and sewage into our lakes and waterways. However, the ability to fine water companies has been in place for a while and has not deterred them. Investment in their infrastructure is long overdue, but it seems that shareholder dividends loom larger on their agenda than the Environment Agency fines. Can the Minister say exactly what conversations have taken place with water companies about improving their infrastructure to prevent future sewage spillages?
I turn now to waste, a great passion of mine. I first became aware of how important it was to reduce waste as a county councillor, when the landfill tax was introduced. This tax concentrated the minds of councillors and officers immediately, as it rose year on year. Much has been done on the recycling front during the intervening years, with many councils having doorstep collections of recyclable materials. However, many of these recyclable collections are not processed in the way the householder imagines they would be but sent for incineration. Although this can and should be through a waste-to-energy plant, supplying electricity locally, this is often not the case. Councils that ask their residents to separate their recyclable waste and collect it through a single-pass vehicle with different compartments for glass, aluminium foil, cans, paper, cardboard and plastic have much higher rates of true recycling.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that we urgently need a single system for every council across the country to make this important change in recycling rates?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
I do indeed, and I am coming to that.
Each of these items can be dealt with in its own way and recycled into reusable articles, thus helping a circular economy. When I lived in Somerset, this system had been up and running for a long time. In Walthamstow, where I rent a flat, all recyclables are in one bin and much of what goes in is not currently recyclable. I know the Government are keen for this system to be rolled out countrywide. Wales has such a system, which has operated for some time, and has the second-highest recycling rate in Europe and, obviously, the highest in Great Britain. Can the Minister give an indication of when the rollout of doorstep separated recyclable waste collections will take place?
My noble friend Lady Randerson spoke passionately about transport and congestion. Reducing emissions and congestion will improve productivity. I welcome the NIC report. Much has been achieved but, goodness me, there is still an awful lot left to do.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Berkeley on securing this short debate. I express my thanks to the National Infrastructure Commission for its report, which provides us all with plenty of food for thought.
In his foreword, Sir John Armitt says he hopes the commission’s output will prompt discussion. Today’s debate is a good start, although we must all acknowledge that this topic requires far more than dialogue alone. We all know that improving infrastructure in its myriad forms is a complicated, long-term project. I hope we will get a sense from the Minister that the Government recognise this and share our appetite to meet the many challenges this country faces. It is also expensive. There will obviously be an important role for the private sector in innovating and delivering change, but those organisations will take their lead from central government, with many likely to fix their gaze on the Treasury and its spending plans. Value for money is and must remain an important consideration, but it seems to me that the starting point is to answer two philosophical questions: what do we want the UK to look like in 20, 50 or 100 years, and how do we get there?
For all the Government’s talk of levelling up, recent ministerial decisions about rail across the north of England seemingly fly in the face of the commission’s call for urban transport connectivity to be improved. Rather than levelling up, I worry that we will see some areas being levelled down to deliver an unsatisfactory equalisation of infrastructure, service and opportunities across the country. Indeed, Transport for London and its custodian, the Mayor of London, are concerned that transport in the capital will have to be placed into managed decline should the Government not ease the organisation’s Covid-related financial difficulties. The Treasury should surely be focused on how the quality and range of transport options can be improved for all.
Of course, it is not just transport identified by the commission as a priority for investment. The body’s list is wide ranging, and I worry that it is symptomatic of more than a decade of Conservative control in Westminster. The tragedy is that, while our Prime Minister takes an interest in infrastructure, his priorities tend to be the wrong ones: an airport in the Thames estuary, a garden bridge in London, a road bridge to Northern Ireland. Each was accompanied by warm words and promises of a brighter future. In truth, the feasibility studies and glossy brochures were a waste of public funds. By focusing on vanity projects, he was distracted from making the right decisions—initially for the people of London, and now for the country as a whole. The result is that we have fallen behind our international friends and competitors where it truly matters. Under this Government, we are not the global leaders we should be.
Problems relating to climate change, including increased risk of localised flooding and what the commission calls “unacceptably high” incidences of water and sewage-related pollution, must be met with concerted and strategic action. That will not only need hard cash but also a proper plan to ensure that resources are available to deliver the commission’s recommendations. The longest lead-time resource is undoubtedly appropriately skilled people. Cash without people is simply a recipe for inflation and disappointment. I hope the commission will study this issue as a vital contribution to the 2023 national infrastructure assessment.
The commission also draws our attention to asset maintenance issues. Those working in the public sector are cursed with the mantra that capital expenditure is good and current expenditure is bad. This results in the premature loss of capital assets as they deteriorate more rapidly due to poor maintenance. As one who was responsible for long-life assets, I know that value for money comes from the whole-life management of capital assets. I hope the commission will continue to emphasise this point in future reports.
There is much to do. The National Infrastructure Commission will now work up a detailed proposal and we look forward to following that work. While options are drawn up and costed, I hope that Ministers will undertake some of the necessary preparatory work, including gathering data, setting targets, and delivering reforms to education and training. As a nation, we are capable of so much; we have world-leading scientists, academics, engineers and architects. We have talented young people who, with the right guidance, can fill those roles and others into the future, building a Britain with much better, greener, and more resilient infrastructure. What they need—and what the country needs—is clear, strategic leadership. By the time the commission comes forward with its next assessment in 2023, we must be ready with our answers to the big questions. Until then, I hope the Minister can provide a sense that his party is learning from previous mistakes in relation to infrastructure and has a sense of where to go next.
Can I repeat some of the points I have made? First, the National Infrastructure Commission is a brilliant idea, but the problem is it does not have saliency. We as politicians should, on a cross-party basis, be helping to build its saliency so that it happens. Secondly, we mismanage the whole people issue; the people have to be related to their whole-life experience, including the skill and be able to learn new skills. Thirdly, we do not look after our assets properly. The maintenance problem comes partly from capitalism without appropriate rules, partly from the way we account for money, and it fails to take account of the real value of looking at all of an asset and all of its future. If we start to get these things right, which will need a partnership between state and private sector, we can look forward to a better value future.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for securing this debate. He is known with great respect throughout the House for his pursuit of certain causes célèbres, including matters relating to transport to the Isles of Scilly. I also know he is a long-standing advocate for the benefits of infrastructure and his speech indicated his clear focus on all the key issues, many of which I will be attempting to touch on this afternoon.
The Government recognise the transformative possibilities of infrastructure benefit here. That is why we have committed £130 billion to economic infrastructure since the publication of the National Infrastructure Strategy last year. However, it is fair to say that in past decades and under past Governments, the UK’s infrastructure has been plagued by stop-start public funding and policy uncertainty that has conspired to undermine private investment. In 2015, to help resolve these issues, the Government established the National Infrastructure Commission—which I will refer to as the NIC—to provide independent, expert advice. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe was right to ask why it took so long. I hope to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the Government have a robust approach to infrastructure. We are focused not merely on capital spending but on long-term infrastructure planning, improving project delivery and supporting private investment. I will try to touch on those points as I go through my remarks.
I remind your Lordships of the crucial role of the NIC’s first national infrastructure assessment. Published in 2018, it set out a recommended long-term strategy for the country’s infrastructure over the next 30 years. That work directly underpinned our National Infrastructure Strategy, which we published last year. Alongside the strategy, the Government published their formal response to the commission’s 2018 recommendations, partially or fully endorsing the vast majority. Already those recommendations are becoming reality. For example, earlier this year we launched the UK Infrastructure Bank in Leeds, which is expected to unlock more than £40 billion-worth of infrastructure investment. Just over a month ago, the UKIB made its first investment with a £107 million loan to Tees Valley Combined Authority. Only yesterday we announced its first private sector investment, in subsidy-free solar energy.
I turn to the baseline report for the Second National Infrastructure Assessment, which is of course the main subject for today’s debate. The report highlights some areas where the Government have made significant progress, so let us start with that. First, on the delivery of gigabit-capable broadband, I mention briefly that, only yesterday, my flat was upgraded to full-fibre broadband, and the speed is much faster—that is just a bit of self-indulgence. The report draws attention to the fact that coverage is now at over 62% compared to just 10% in November 2019. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, mentioned that rural broadband connectivity is lagging behind. The Government recognise the importance of gigabit-capable connectivity to people across all areas, but particularly in rural parts. We have committed £5 billion to support gigabit-capable coverage in the hardest-to-reach-areas where possible, so that is an ongoing programme and the noble Baroness raised a good point.
Secondly, on the transition to renewable forms of energy, the report points out that the share of electricity generated from renewable sources has grown from less than 10% in 2010 to almost 40% in 2019.
Thirdly, on our ambition for electric vehicles, the report mentions the Government’s pledge to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans in 2030, with all new vehicles required to be 100% zero emission from 2035. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, stated that there was not enough funding for buses along the same theme. I reassure her that £3 billion of new funding over this Parliament will be dedicated, to double the amount given since the 2015 spending review levels. The £525 million for zero-emission buses in this Parliament is in addition to wider support, including a green uplift in the bus services operator grant, and £1.2 billion of dedicated bus transformation funding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also suggested that more needs to be done on long-range charging and charger ratios. The Government are making significant investments in electric vehicle charging, including £1.3 billion at the spending review 2020. That includes funding for a rapid changing fund to reduce people’s anxieties around long-range charging by rolling out thousands of rapid charges across our strategic road network. The UK has more rapid chargers per 100 miles than any country in Europe, according to a report. However, of course the noble Baroness is right to make that point, and there is always more to be done there—we all know that as drivers on our roads.
Fourthly, on drought resilience, which was raised. The report underlines that we have endorsed the commission’s recommendation that we increase drought resilience to reflect a one-in-500-year event.
Another positive aspect of the report is the NIC’s social research, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Understandably, people will always call for more and better infrastructure. However, this research shows growing public confidence that infra- structure will meet people’s needs over the next 30 years—this is perhaps excepting the views on net zero raised by the noble Lord. I will need to check back on that.
Of course, we recognise that the report also highlights some concerns, including nine key challenges on which the NIC will focus in its second national infrastructure assessment. I want to focus my remarks around three important elements of these, again raised during this short debate: net zero, flooding and transport.
First, although net zero was mentioned in rather positive terms by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, we recognise the report’s concerns about our journey to net zero, including in respect of decarbonising our electricity system and heating. That is why we have recently published our net-zero strategy, setting out how we plan to achieve our 2050 goals, in particular by leveraging up to £90 billion of private investment in green infrastructure by 2050.
The Government have also published the Heat and Buildings Strategy, which lays out our vision for a sustainable and affordable transition to a low-carbon heating sector. We are providing £3.9 billion over the spending review period for heat and buildings decarbonisation, including £1.8 billion for low-income households and £450 million for the new boiler upgrade scheme, which financially incentivises home owners to install heat pumps.
We have also provided significant funding to decarbonise transport. This includes confirming £6.1 billion at the spending review to support the policies and strategy in the transport decarbonisation plan. We have invested £620 million in the transition to EVs, building on the £1.9 billion committed at the previous spending review.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe stated that there was no road map for net zero and that the UK was not reducing emissions fast enough. I note those two points. In response, I would say that the UK reduced emissions faster than any other country in the G20 between 1990 and 2019. The UK reduced its greenhouse emissions by 44% compared to just 5% for the G7 as a whole. In June 2019, the UK became the first major economy to legislate for an end of contribution to climate change by 2050. As I mentioned earlier, the recently-published net zero strategy sets out a clear pathway to reach net zero and level up the UK by supporting up 190,000 jobs in the mid-2020s and up to 440,000 jobs in the 2030s.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
On progress on greenhouse gases and zero emissions, where does the into-the-UK part of international aviation come in this? At the moment, I get the impression that it is dumped and seen as not part of our problem. It is part of our problem.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that it is part of the problem. I suspect that he may be referring to the air passenger duty and other matters. I shall write separately to him on that important matter, because I think it is fair to say that there is a balance to be struck between allowing people to travel and being sure that our aeroplane sector is fit for purpose in terms of achieving our climate change goals. I think that was probably the gist behind his question.
On flooding, we recognise that action is needed to improve surface water management as flood risk increases, so we have commissioned the NIC to conduct a study into the management of surface water flooding in England, including the role of nature-based solutions. In addition, the Government have updated their partnership funding arrangements, enabling more surface water schemes now to be delivered via their £5.2 billion investment programme.
Finally, I turn to urban connectivity, as part of the wider transport issues that I mentioned earlier. We recognise the challenges in respect to this highlighted by the report. That is why in the Budget we committed £5.7 billion over five years for London-style integrated transport settlements that will transform local networks in eight English city regions, and we have announced £1.2 billion over the spending review period for bus transformation deals.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked whether the Government should consider the challenges and costs of delivering major infrastructure projects. He is quite right to highlight this. That is why the Chancellor set up Project SPEED to ensure that spending decisions are informed by deliverability concerns.
Moving quickly to next steps—with the Committee’s indulgence, I will go on beyond my time, but not too far—our work to create an infrastructure revolution is a remarkable cross-government effort. The Government have an established process for formally responding to the NIC’s recommendations. Once it has published the second national infrastructure assessment in the second half of 2023, we will respond as soon as practicable, although, as I have shown today, we are already engaging on these issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, asked about flood defences and where the £5.6 billion is being invested. Funding is distributed consistently across the country to wherever the risk is greatest and the benefits are highest. Defra published its flood and coastal erosion risk management investment plan in July 2021, as she may know. It provides an indicative regional breakdown of spend, including between £620 million and £750 million of investment in the north-west and £680 million to £830 million in Yorkshire and the Humber.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about funding and urban connectivity. The Government have provided £4 billion of additional emergency funding to support TfL through the pandemic to address urban congestion. We have announced £5.7 billion to support transport networks.
I will conclude with a few ad lib-type remarks, as I want to pick up on an interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about our reflection on going to Waitrose to pick up a box of matches. We should be sure, as part of this debate on the NIC, of the vision we are looking at. This is probably not government policy, but we should look ahead—probably not too far—at how we might get our box of matches. Surely we would order a drone, which would deliver it to us. Or, if we were going to go to Waitrose, we would talk to our watch and ask a car—not our car but any driverless car—to come to our door. We would then get into the car with a coffee and a newspaper, be driven to Waitrose to buy our box of matches and then be driven back. The car would then disappear into the ether. We would then take our box of matches—perhaps rather cynically, I wonder what it might be for. Perhaps it is to light your fire in the drawing room, which adversely affects CO2, so maybe we should not go there. Anyway, the serious point is that we need to think quite positively about the changes that will definitely come to the way that we live. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke about society and our way of life. He makes an extremely good point.
To conclude, this is an extraordinary moment—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he would like to exceed his brief again and say something about the longer term. He has answered very well on some of the individual comments raised by Peers this afternoon, but the point I was trying to make is that the National Infrastructure Commission is important because it looks at the longer-term, comprehensive picture, and the need for planning is very important. As a former Treasury Minister, I know that it is not always top of the Treasury’s list.
Perhaps we might discuss on another occasion the excellent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about capital and current expenditure. I remember talking to Education Ministers who had spent lots of capital on schools. Capital was easy, free and glamorous, but running costs were not. The capital did not provide the cheapest possible way of running things, which commercial operators care a lot about. There is a profound point underlying his question, and it would be good if we could come back to that on a future occasion.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point, and I hope that I have made it clear that we are thinking big and long. I mentioned 30 years, but perhaps we should look longer than that. One example is HS2. Whether we like it or not, that is an example of long-term planning—now covering four Governments, because I think it goes back to before 2010 as a concept.
That plays in nicely to my concluding remarks. We are perhaps at an extraordinary moment in this country’s history, as we make our way in the world as global Britain and build back better after Covid-19. This Government’s infrastructure revolution will, as the Prime Minister has previously put it, unleash the productive power of every part of this country and allow us to seize these opportunities with both hands. I have no doubt that the advice and guidance of the NIC will be integral to achieving all this and ultimately to helping us reach new levels of success.
Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the report put it,
“bold action, stable plans and long term funding”
are the aims. It is just a question of how we get there.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: Sporting Events
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Astor
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to include sporting events.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, I have just had a message from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan; he is in the debate in the main Chamber so will be a little late. He apologises but hopes to be here in time.
If you take a mobile telephone into a pop concert, a theatre or a cinema, or copy a book, and try to sell what you have filmed, then you have broken the law as set out in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. If you go to a football match, a race meeting, a golf match, an athletics event or any other sporting event and do the same thing, you will not have broken the law as sporting events are not covered by the Act. When the Act was introduced, it covered original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, sound recordings, films and the topographical arrangement of published editions. I do not think that anyone foresaw in 1988 what new technology would be capable of, and clearly the Act needs to be reviewed and possibly revised.
In 1988 there was a view that sport did not constitute an intellectual creation. The reason why sporting events were omitted is that debate was focused on the individual sportsmen rather than the event, with the argument that the rules of sport left only limited room for creative freedom. However, it is the event, and the copyright in the event, that is important, and that is what is required. Copyright, one must note, does not exist until the event is captured in a broadcast or a picture. It is not the sport that I am concerned about but the event.
There are two reasons why reform is needed. The first is that sporting bodies are losing valuable media rights income. The second, which is just as important if not more so, is that the lack of copyright on events has resulted in a vast expansion of illegal gambling, leading to problem gambling and gambling harm. That takes some explanation, if noble Lords will indulge me. Illicit pictures are utilised by the black-market operators as a unique selling point to attract customers who are not subject to betting regulation. These operators have zero interest in protecting potential vulnerable customers. Sporting bodies in this country, from big football clubs to small race meetings, sell their media rights for broadcast on satellite and terrestrial television, which is then sold on, often to betting shops. The total sporting industry media rights are worth in excess of £1 billion. The largest amount obviously goes to the larger football clubs but then the money trickles down to grass-roots sports throughout the country.
In this country, terrestrial broadcasters are allocated low spectrum to transmit pictures, which results in a one-second or two-second delay between the live action and the broadcast. If you fly a drone that is linked to a camera and then to a mobile telephone, or use one or more mobile telephones to record an event, you can transmit those pictures faster than television pictures as mobile telephones use a higher-spectrum frequency and therefore have up to a two-second advantage. So rogue operators are selling live pictures at a discount, and sporting bodies are losing out from the resulting diminution of their media income. This means that, when they have to renegotiate media rights, they will be offered less.
Some of the large football clubs can stop drones flying over the stadium—that is quite easy. But it is impossible for many sporting events to do so, because the drones just film a yard away from being above the event and do not actually fly over it. It is possible but difficult to enforce against drones. You can stop them from flying directly overhead an event if you can find out who is actually flying them; the problem is that the operators just move the drone slightly further away, over a neighbouring property, and the cameras are so good that they can still film the event. The cameras have a really long range that they can transmit, so it is almost impossible to figure out how to stop them.
At some horserace meetings this summer, you could see eight drones flying in a preset pattern along the course. Someone would have come along in a van and unloaded the drones, let them fly up in the air and then driven away. They were following preset patterns loaded in, so there was no way in which to find the person responsible for them, because they would disappear on the day and do not come back until later. So it is an incredibly difficult thing to do. The problem is, because they are not actually flying exactly over the event, they are not breaking any of the air navigation rules as set out by the Civil Aviation Authority. It is not just drones doing this—there are multiple mobile telephones whose content is then aggregated. There have been instances whereby 30 students have been given burner phones and paid to go to a football match, hold them up and film the match, which is then streamed and aggregated somewhere in the ether and then sold on to illegal bookmaking sites.
We do not want to criminalise the sports enthusiast for filming his favourite sporting event—that is not the point at all. You cannot ban people from filming, and nor should you, but you can follow the money. We want to stop those who are selling the pictures on, and not only debasing media rights but affecting the growth of harmful gambling. Just to take horseracing as an example, it is a huge industry, and the amount of betting that goes on is probably worth about £9 billion throughout the year. It is very profitable for bookmakers, and millions flow back into the sport via media rights—that is true of all sports—and with racing through the horseracing levy.
The betting industry has done much to solve concerns about problem gambling, but there is more to be done. The Gambling Commission has been in the forefront of pushing for changes to prevent problem gamblers from using slot machines, casinos and betting shops or betting online. However, its important work is seriously being undermined by illegal gambling sites, which are often based abroad and therefore totally unregulated. There is no point in squeezing out problem gamblers from regulated sites if they can just as easily move to an unregulated site. The reason why they can do this is that the transmission of these sporting events is done by people who sell the pictures to illegal gambling operators in this country, which are not only unregulated but can easily be accessed via the internet in this country. You can put a bet almost anywhere you want in the world, so it is almost impossible to stop that unless you have some copyright. You have to be able to follow the money because, if you do not, it is really impossible. The illegal sites beat the bookmakers and betting shops by the two seconds when the broadcast is transmitted, because many bets are put on in the running or during a game. If you have a two-second advantage, although it might take someone like me a long time to put on a bet, if you are a clever person—and an addict, as it were—you can put on a bet very quickly, and that is what is happening.
I go back to the point that unregulated problem gambling is a very serious issue which has to be addressed. Assessment of recent statistics would suggest that illegal bookmaker betting in this country is now worth about £0.5 billion. There are probably over 400,000 customers using illegal betting sites in this country; it is a serious problem. I hope that the Government will consider, when they come to legislation next year, bringing sporting events into copyright protection. That would allow the Gambling Commission the power to follow the trail of the money and shut down illegal and problem gambling.
Gambling is a serious issue and there have been lots of debates about problem gambling. I note that the Minister’s colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said in winding up a debate on the Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill the other day:
“Gambling is one of our society’s major ills.”—[Official Report, 19/11/21; col. 575.]
I hope that is not a reflection of government policy because I do not think gambling, whether in horse racing or any other, is a serious ill provided it is properly regulated and we regulate against gambling harm. Illegal gambling is the problem, not legal gambling.
I believe the Government could look at this. I note that copyright protection exists in France, Belgium and Italy, so I am not asking them to look at anything that does not exist in other countries. I hope the Government will look seriously at what is happening in Europe and see whether they can address this serious problem.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, not only noble Lords here but all sorts of other people will be watching this debate this afternoon, including racing as a whole, racecourses, owners, trainers, jockeys, honest punters and—yes, there are plenty—honest bookmakers, because it covers such an important threat to the revenues keeping them in business. Following the noble Viscount’s wonderful speech, I certainly do not want to drone on, but let me give a brief lay man’s account of what is going on here.
Go to a racecourse now and you can hardly miss the drones; there are perhaps eight or 10 of them flying about all over the course, so what is going on? As the author of a work of racing fiction—Counter Coup, in all good bookshops now, as it has been for the last seven years—I would not dare dream up so implausible a plot as the reality of what is going on. In a nutshell, what is going on is tech-assisted cheating. These days, you do not have to put a bet on a horse before a race starts; you can back horses “in running” as it is called. When drones come in, they can transmit pictures of a race seconds before they appear on conventional television.
So, Joe Bloggs is sitting at home in front of his TV. He sees the favourite lengths in front coming to the last and puts a big bet on at short odds that it will win. More fool him, because his drone counterpart is a few seconds ahead and he knows that the horse just fell at the last. Therefore, he can lay that horse for as much cash as he wants with no danger or difficulty of losing his money. He lays the horse and counts his winnings. Who loses? It is the punter who backed the favourite and racecourses which do not have copyright in the pictures and therefore cannot get any money from the pictures of the product they are supplying. There is less money for racing, less money for owners—I am an owner, so I can say that with some bitterness—and less money for trainers, jockeys and legitimate bookmakers, apart from a handful of often illegal bookmakers who may be in on the game.
This is not legitimate betting, to which I certainly have no objection. This is foul play, and it must be stopped. One way of doing so would be to give the racecourses copyright in all pictures so that at least the droners paid up out of their ill-gotten gains. Another would be to make such filming of sporting events a criminal offence. The Government will no doubt come to their own conclusions as to which route is the easiest. What is important is that they do not conclude that both routes are difficult and therefore do absolutely nothing about this scandal of legalised fraud.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I seek your Lordships’ permission. I had no intention whatever of being discourteous to my noble friend but equally I was trying not to be discourteous to the Minister after I spoke in the debate in the Chamber on the humanitarian issues in Afghanistan. With the agreement of the Committee and of the Chair, I will hand over now and speak in the gap, just to emphasise the important point in chapter 4.32 of the Companion that speakers should be present for the opening speech. I sincerely apologise to the Committee for that being difficult on account of the other debate overrunning. I will give way to my noble friend, who will speak now, and with the agreement of the Committee I will speak in the gap.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am glad we have come to that agreement. I thank my noble friend Lord Astor for initiating this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for his colourful perspective, although, as he says, the solutions in these matters are never easy.
Like both noble Lords, I love racing, especially on the flat, and believe that elite sport broadcast here and around the world is important to UK growth, enterprise and soft power. Over the years, I have spent a good deal of time in Asia and Europe and have been struck by the power of teams such as Manchester United and indeed Manchester City, English cricket, Welsh rugby and of course the Derby to bring people together and attract wealth and investment into Britain.
I was Intellectual Property Minister for nearly three years—happy times—mainly under David Cameron, and I helped others to understand the evolution and importance of intangible assets such as those that we are talking about. Over 4% of our GDP in 2019 was invested in intellectual property rights, and of course copyright, which we are discussing today, is the biggest intellectual property right in economic terms.
At that time, we not only had the best IP regime in the world but we prided ourselves on good enforcement of the rights, which provided certainty for business, sport, inventors, scientists and the creative industry, while the Intellectual Property Office and the IP crime unit in the City of London Police led the charge against infringements of all kinds. Some of them were very dangerous, such as counterfeit airbags and website scams. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, in his seat; we did a lot of work together on trying to get IP into a decent place, and to avoid the sorts of scams that we have heard about from my noble friend today.
One offending area was autovisual content, including live match footage, which could then be streamed in from abroad by, say, Greek or Asian providers for a very low fee but not be caught by the rules on copyright and the associated licensing because of the wording of an exemption in Section 72 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which followed a confusing ECJ judgment in 2011. The beneficiaries of that state of affairs seemed to be from overseas, as in the racing example that my noble friend Lord Astor has raised. While some pubs might have been getting cheaper deals, they might well at the same time have been breaching copyright laws, which was itself a big cause of concern.
Like much to do with IP, this area is very complex, as we will discover when we seek to put our towels around our heads and solve the very real problem that has been raised today. On the issue that I have mentioned, after two painful consultations, we concluded that the right thing was to remove film completely from the Section 72 exemption. We made regulations in 2016 that seemed to do the trick and reduce lawbreaking. We put a review clause in, which is something I am always very keen on in regulations, and that review is now taking place. I recall this and mention it today because of its relevance and because it has been mentioned in the excellent briefing by the Library for this debate. My strong advice to the Minister on that one is to leave well alone, because it is very complex and you can go around in circles.
I listened to my noble friend Lord Astor, who raised a new horror that perhaps could be addressed by the right regulation of copyright, which is what we were doing on that occasion. This is exactly the sort of issue that the Intellectual Property Office, of which I am a great admirer, is good at tackling. Illegal gambling is for the DCMS, of course, but in my experience they work well together and should act as my noble friend Lord Astor suggested.
He has identified a very valuable and unfair two seconds. That was the thing that struck me—the delay that allows this profit to be a completely wrong accretion of value. It is a new online harm for us to wrestle with, and regulation is no doubt needed. That is why this debate is very timely, with the legislation on that issue coming forward soon.
I very much look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s comments and hope that the two issues we have raised are not in conflict.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I again apologise to and thank the Committee for allowing me to speak in the gap. I will be briefer than I anticipated. However, I had the pleasure and privilege of reading my noble friend Lord Astor’s notes in advance of today’s Committee and I fully endorse what he said and agree with the position he has taken.
I well remember the discussions on the relevant Bill back in 1988, because I was then Minister for Sport in Margaret Thatcher’s Government and this subject came across my desk. It was at a time when sport was very much on the fringes of government. It was in the Department of the Environment and long before the days of extensive broadcasting rights, major television deals and the lottery. They were still years away. In fact, most of the work done then in the department was on the problems caused by football hooligans bringing shame to the national game and the country. Much has changed. The advent of sport as an intellectual creation was still to come. The commercial world I have just described really happened in the 1990s.
The speech of my noble friend Lord Astor that I read is absolutely pertinent, because we have to act on this now. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was right. I will not talk about the gambling side of this. They both made a strong argument in favour of bringing sporting events into copyright protection. It is worth quoting the excellent brief by the WIPO:
“IP rights … and the legal protection they give … help to secure the economic value of sport. This in turn stimulates growth of the sports industry, enables sporting organizations to finance high-profile sports events”.
We already have precedent in taking action on exactly what my noble friend is looking for, when we brought forward legislation for the London 2012 Olympic Games specifically to protect the rights of the organising committee at that time. Only recently we have had legislation to the same effect with regard to the Commonwealth Games to be held next year. There is ample precedent for us now to consider this in the wider context of sport and to follow the ideas my noble friend raised.
I close by endorsing what he said, supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, and apologising once again to the Committee. In nearly 30 years I have never missed an opening speech in a debate I intended to speak in. I would normally have scratched immediately but, given that I missed just a speech I had read, I hope I have the Committee’s forgiveness for being present in the Chamber for the winding up by the Minister, who referred to the speech I gave on the appalling humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. I end with further apologies and thanks to the Committee.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I do not feel offended at all by what happened and am very pleased that we can accommodate the noble Lord’s comments and contribution to this debate. As regards our side, he can relax on that matter.
I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for bringing this debate forward. It is one of those areas that the more you look into it, the more complicated and complex it gets. Battling with advances in technology is bedevilling us in so many areas, and it has been very illustrative to hear the cases so eloquently put by both the noble Viscount and my noble friend Lord Lipsey. I also pay tribute to the Library for the briefing that it gave us.
On the protections being called for in this area, I think that we are all looking forward to the Minister’s comments on where we have got to in what is a very technical and complicated debate. I want to add from my perspective just how important sport in its broadest context is to local economies as well as national economies. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, gave an assessment of travelling to the Far East. As a long-suffering Leeds United supporter who has been on trade missions to Malaysia and China, I found the collective memory in those places of how Leeds was a great team incredible—because, until they returned to the Premiership, the length of time that Leeds were out of the top flight was quite significant. I am talking about the direct trade talks I had as leader of the council with significant businesses and how important that contribution was. In my time as leader, I was able to secure the triathlon world series coming to Leeds as the UK venue, the television rights that came with that, and the exposure of the city and the whole region that came through securing the grand départ of the Tour de France. It is very difficult to put a value on the importance of that to the sense of well-being as well as wealth growth in our local communities.
I therefore recognise the World Intellectual Property Organization’s comments about helping to secure the economic value of sport and about how that, in turn, stimulates the growth of the sports economy, enabling sports organisations to finance high-profile sports events and providing the means to promote sports development. It is absolutely critical that we look at this through the lens of sports organisations, and we should of course recognise the benefit that the sale of broadcasting and media rights brings and that it is the biggest source of revenue. We should also consider how those funds can then be used to contribute to the development of sport at grass-roots level. Do the Government have plans to encourage intellectual property revenue being directed into the development of grass-roots organisations?
The Sports Rights Owners Coalition has argued that protection against rights infringements is
“key to a sustainable financing of both professional and grassroots sports”
and, as such, it has called on the Government to
“fully recognise, protect and promote the special nature of sport and sports rights”.
We have heard of course how the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allowed organisations that do not charge admission to show television programmes to the public without permission from the owners of film and broadcast copyright in those programmes. The Act was subject to amendment in 2016, when “film” was removed from the list of exceptions. The Explanatory Note to the regulations stated that this change would ensure that
“Section 72 will only provide a defence against infringement (in the showing or playing of a broadcast) of the rights in a broadcast per se, and will not extend to any film rights in the broadcast”.
Five years on, does the Minister believe this change provided greater clarity, as was intended? What impact has this had on the wider licensing framework? The pertinent question for the debate is this: when will the Government publish the response to their review of these changes? If there is any sense of what options for action could follow, I would be very grateful for an understanding of where this is heading.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Astor for tabling what has been a very important debate. I have certainly found it constructive, interesting and informative and am grateful to those Members who have contributed. First, let me make it absolutely clear that the Government are committed to supporting sports and sporting events, as well as athletes, spectators and all those whose livelihoods are dependent on the successful running of sporting events at all levels.
The Question for Short Debate tabled by my noble friend is
“to ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to include sporting events.”
To address this directly, I should start by explaining that the main purpose of that Act is to protect creative works and intellectual creation, innovation and invention. For copyright, this includes original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, as well as films, sound recordings and broadcasts. Live sporting events and athletic performances are not eligible for copyright protection.
The main reason for this is that copyright must be an intellectual creation. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, would argue that some of the fantastic performances of Leeds United in the 1970s were intellectual creations, but I am sorry to tell her that, in general, sporting performances are not considered intellectual creations since the rules of sport leave only limited room for real creative freedom.
Proposals to have sporting performances protected by copyright provisions raise grave concerns about the development of sport—for instance, if an athlete were able to protect their performance, or an aspect of it, from being copied by other athletes. We can see how many difficulties would be caused by going down that route.
The owner of copyright in footage of sport is the person who films it, as they have creative control of how that race, game or event is filmed. The proposal before us of having a sporting event protected directly under the CDPA would reverse this, meaning that the copyright in any film of a sporting event would be owned no longer by the person who filmed it but instead by the event’s organiser or perhaps even its participants. This would represent a significant departure from the prevailing understanding of the purpose of copyright protection, which is to protect the creator and creative industries. This would not just entail reopening the domestic copyright framework; we would also have to consider whether there would be consequences for the UK’s obligations under international legal frameworks.
The CDPA, along with the Trade Marks Acts, forms the basis of an essential form of legal protection available to sporting events. For example, trademarks are valuable assets that can build confidence and loyalty in a business by protecting things such as names and logos. This is especially important in the world of sport, where sports clubs wish to engender a sense of pride and identity in their brand—such as Leeds United—allowing them to invest in and build up a reputation in their club names and logos and then control and commercialise official club merchandise based on that brand.
In addition, films of sporting events are protected by copyright, and this is how organisers of sports traditionally create and control the intellectual property linked to their events. Footage of sporting events allows clubs to license their match or race footage to broadcasters, which of course generates a crucial source of revenue for a wide variety of sporting enterprises.
Certain forms of sports data can also be protected by IP rights, such as database rights. Anyone wishing to use that data would need to seek the permission of the rights holder. That said, copyright does not protect facts themselves, including facts around sporting events—but it can protect how facts are expressed.
My noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, both raised concerns about the use of camera drones to film sports events and using their live streams to gain an advantage over official broadcasts and betting sites. The Gambling Commission regulates nearly all commercial gambling in Great Britain, including all sports betting, and has so far found little evidence that illegal drone filming is linked to illegal gambling sites. The commission can take action against illegal operators, using its relationships with web-hosting companies and payment providers to disrupt these websites.
It is true that filming or recording sporting events is often prohibited under conditions of entry to sporting venues, as it is in cinemas. Drones may be one way of bypassing conditions of entry. The Gambling Commission believes that using unauthorised drones, much like using unauthorised phones from inside venues, is driven primarily by gamblers who are in-play betting on legal sites seeking an advantage from information that is more up to date than that available to operators or other betting exchange users who are watching an official broadcast. However, this type of courtsiding and other forms of illicit filming are not considered an offence under the Gambling Act.
Furthermore, the commission’s sports betting intelligence unit works closely with the betting industry, sports’ governing bodies and the police to protect the integrity of sport and betting. The unit will determine the most effective course of action in each case. This can lead to further investigations being carried out by the commission or the police. The commission also supported a police-led initiative on drone use in racing and invited the UK national police adviser to speak at a sports betting intelligence forum. The commission already requires gambling operators to have policies designed to manage betting integrity and regulatory risks within in-play betting.
The Government are determined to take steps to help sporting events put a stop to organisations and activities that support illegal gambling and the unauthorised use of footage protected by copyright. The Gambling Act review is taking a comprehensive look at gambling regulation in Great Britain to make sure that it is fit for the digital age, including looking at the powers the Gambling Commission has to tackle illegal operators. The Government recognise that these are issues of genuine concern to the businesses that have raised them, but they have not yet seen sufficient evidence of any harm arising to justify any intervention at this time, much less an unorthodox expansion of the copyright regime.
The Government would of course be open to receiving further quantitative evidence on the matter. If the businesses concerned were able to make a better case for government action, backed by persuasive data, of course we would consider what measures might be effective. However, an expansion of copyright-like protection in the way proposed is in our view simply not viable. Not only would it be a significant and unprecedented development, with unknown impacts and unintended consequences, but it would move the globally well-established scope of copyright well beyond the protection of creators and creative industries and fundamentally alter the nature of what subject matter is protected.
I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for her observations on Section 72 of the CDPA. The Government are currently analysing the review of the section and we will publish our findings in due course. I fully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, that sports and sporting events, including grass-roots sport, are of crucial benefit to all levels of the economy. IP can and does provide sport with opportunities to develop and promote revenue and we fully agree that promoting IP rights is crucial to this. As I mentioned previously, the Government are analysing the review of Section 72 of the CDPA and we will publish our findings in due course. I also thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for his contribution and for his experience in this field.
I end by again thanking my noble friend Lord Astor and those who have contributed to what I think has been a very good and informative debate today.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Patient Safety Commissioner
Baroness Cumberlege
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the process to appoint the Patient Safety Commissioner will commence; and when they expect the Commissioner to be in post.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, we are making good progress towards appointing the first patient safety commissioner for England. We expect the appointment of the postholder by spring 2022. We have publicly consulted on the appointment and role of the patient safety commissioner and have agreement that the role will be regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and subject to pre-appointment scrutiny.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very interesting reply and I thank all those who have been involved in establishing the patient safety commissioner—the first in England and, I am told, the world. But my deep concern is that we are setting up the commissioner to fail, with a term of office too short to establish the role, set up a new organisation and get to grips with a very complex task. Three years is too short. Does my noble friend agree that five years would be preferable? Will she please work with colleagues to lengthen the term of office from three to five years, as is the case with the Children’s Commissioner?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that Question. The postholder will be offered a three-year term of office and may be reappointed for a further three years, subject to ministerial agreement. This is in line with most other public appointments. We believe that three years, with a possible extension of a further three, subject to ministerial agreement, is the right approach. This means that, if reappointed, the postholder could serve up to six years, which is a good amount of time for the role to become well-established within the healthcare system.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, the independence of the patient safety commissioner is vital. Will that independence be built into the regulations to ensure that the patient community is confident that the commissioner has the authority to do the job and protect the patient?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
Of course, that is vital. The commissioner must have the freedom to act independently if they are to be effective. We will work with the commissioner to agree how the commissioner’s independence will be safeguarded.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, one of the key tasks of the independent patient safety commissioner will be to make recommendations on patient safety issues as they relate to medicines and medical devices. The important question I would like to ask the Minister is: who will be responsible for implementing those recommendations and where will the accountability lie?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
Accountability is obviously very important. We are making sure that the patient safety commissioner is complementary to the many bodies already operating in our health service and enhances their work. The commissioner will have the power to request and share information with relevant persons in the NHS or the independent sector in carrying out their core duties, which will facilitate joined-up working. Shared accountability to the Secretary of State for many of these public bodies and the commissioner will also help them to collaborate and co-operate across organisations, with a responsibility to improve patient safety.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, in view of the size of the liability for clinical negligence in the NHS, is it not urgent that the commissioner be appointed and be successful in introducing measures for increased safety?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
Yes, we obviously want to get the patient safety commissioner in position as soon as possible. The consultation ran from 10 June to 5 August. We will shortly arrange for publication of the Government’s response to the consultation and publish the job advert and job description to kick off the appointment process. We will also bring forward the necessary draft regulations, which will be subject to debate in both Houses.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for her reply to the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. However, the Government first said that the patient safety commissioner would be in post by the first quarter of 2022, and it is clear from the timetable that that will now not be achieved. So, can the Minister set out the current thinking on when the patient safety commissioner will actually be in post?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I fear that I cannot really add to what I said to my noble and learned friend. We are going to advertise the role shortly and we have finalised the relevant details. The patient safety commissioner will be a regulated public appointment, which means that the appointment process will follow the requirements of the Governance Code on Public Appointments. The process will be open and transparent, but all of this takes a bit of time. It may still be spring 2022.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, it is a shame that my noble friend cannot commit to a date. As others have said, this has dragged on. Given that she has given a commitment to do this by spring, can she say what the department is doing to come up with new ideas to ensure there is a genuinely broad and diverse field of candidates, so that patients’ voices really are heard?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. As I said, the appointment process will follow the Governance Code on Public Appointments. The process will be open and transparent and the appointment will be made on merit. The process is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who will approve a senior independent member of the assessment panel. The appointment will also be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny hearing with the Health and Social Care Select Committee.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, given all the pressures on the NHS at this difficult time, is it not more necessary than ever to have a patient safety commissioner who could hear and co-ordinate patients’ voices and act on their concerns? Are there some hopeful candidates waiting?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I am sure there are hopeful candidates waiting. I am afraid I have no idea who they are—obviously, that is not within my remit. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to get on with this. I think the department realises that and is concentrating on moving this forward.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is worth reminding ourselves of the problem: we need a patient safety champion because many patients, particularly women, were disregarded and dismissed for many years by those across the whole of our NHS. This was graphically and effectively exposed by the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Will the commissioner report to Parliament, and how will we ensure—I say “we” because I think we all have a responsibility in this regard—that their independence is safeguarded and their status protected?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
Those are both very important questions. We place enormous emphasis on patient safety, which is central to effective functioning of the NHS. Appointing this commissioner will make sure that we are beginning to go ahead with that. As far as accountability is concerned—the consultation has not been announced yet, so I am probably going to be told that I am going beyond my brief—there is supposedly going to be an annual report. The commissioner will produce an annual report, to be laid in Parliament, setting out activities undertaken during the year. The commissioner may appoint an advisory board whose members will have a broad range of relevant interests, experience and knowledge of the health system.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, how will the Secretary of State inform the public about the commissioner and his or her role, and how should he or she be contacted?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I think that that will all become obvious when we have set out exactly how this is going to work. The fact that the commissioner has to report to Parliament annually is one way. How patients themselves will get in touch with the commissioner will be laid out in the regulations when that has all been sorted out.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the important inquiry of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, shone a light on the consequences of the dangerous drug, Primodos. Is the Minister aware that within the last 18 months, 19 parents of children severely damaged by Primodos have died, while still worrying that their children would be left financially dependent on the state? They died in despair. What can the Minister do to ensure that others do not also die without hope, knowing that justice has not been served and that the request for redress, recommended in First Do No Harm, the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has also been refused?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
It is upsetting to hear of these deaths, and we offer our deepest sympathy, obviously, to the children and families. Our priority remains improving the future safety of all medicines and devices. This means we will continue to focus our work on direct support for future safety, and on improving how the system listens to patients and supports and monitors safety and clinical practice in respect of medicines and devices. This is very much what the patient safety commissioner will be concentrating on.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Oil and Gas Authority: Remit
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to align the remit of the Oil and Gas Authority from seeking the “maximum economic recovery” of North Sea oil and gas, to meeting the United Kingdom’s net-zero emissions commitments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, even though renewable electricity capacity has grown five-fold since 2010, oil and gas are still essential for our energy needs and are vital to the production of many everyday essentials such as medicines, plastics, cosmetics and household appliances. They will remain so in declining amounts, even in a net-zero world. It is therefore essential that we have a managed transition away from fossil fuels, as set out in our landmark North Sea Transition Deal.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere stands at an unprecedented 417 parts per million. At the very least, we have to stop exploration for new fields. The truth is that the UK is the most profitable country in the world for large offshore oil and gas projects thanks to our MER policy. Companies can offset all spending on exploration against tax, as well as receiving millions of pounds in direct grants. What plans do the Government have to phase out such inefficient subsidies, as required by the Glasgow climate pact?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As the noble Baroness knows, we have some of the most ambitious climate targets of any major economy in the western world and we are committed to net zero; indeed, it is a legal obligation. However, we will still need declining amounts of oil and gas, and the choice we face is whether we wish to use that produced domestically or to import it. In every scenario set out by the reductions, we will still have a requirement for petroleum products.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I congratulate the Government on their ambitious climate targets, but can my noble friend tell the House what proportion of the oil that will be extracted from the Cambo development is likely to be exported under current scenarios, as there seems to be little domestic demand for the heavy crude oil that Cambo and other future oilfields will produce? This seems more about exporting than about domestic energy security, and, in that context, some extra taxation on production would anticipate some of the future taxpayer costs that might arise if these oilfields end up being unable to export in a future scenario of other countries having to reduce their oil imports.
Lord Callanan (Con)
No decision has yet been made regarding the proposed Cambo field. The export market for oil and gas produced from Cambo is purely a commercial matter dictated by the market, the quality of oil and the different refinery capabilities. But, as I said, even with continued development, we expect the UK to remain a net importer of both oil and gas throughout the transition period when following the Climate Change Committee’s balanced net-zero pathway.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, HMRC estimates that decommissioning will cost the taxpayer £18.3 billion over the next few decades. Oil and gas companies can claim tax back on all decommissioning as well as R&D, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, pointed out. We also have one of the lowest tax burdens for oil and gas in the world. Shell paid $1.8 billion in tax to Norway last year, but the UK gave it $99.1 million towards decommissioning costs. What has happened to the polluter pays principle? After all, the oil companies have made a lot of money and trashed our planet, and now we are going to help them continue to make money in order to transition to a better future.
Lord Callanan (Con)
It remains the case that the petroleum sector is a net payer of taxes to the UK Exchequer. I frankly do not understand the argument that we should stop all production in the North Sea and instead import those materials that we will continue to need in every scenario. We would be declining to give ourselves the revenue and spending extra to import those same products.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, a global poll of energy workers showed that more than half want to leave the fossil fuel industry. What are the Government doing to support these workers in the UK to ensure that there is a fair and just transition both for them and for their communities?
Lord Callanan (Con)
That is a very good question, and this is why we have our world-leading oil and gas sector transition deal, the North Sea Transition Deal. We are committed to it, with the support of all the oil and gas companies, to precisely bring about that happy state of affairs so that workers can transition to working in the clean economy.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, speaking last month, Tim Eggar, the chairman of the Oil and Gas Authority, was bullish when referencing future offshore licensing rounds in the UK. He said:
“Let’s be clear, there is no current ban on exploration and licensing”—
and, of course, he is right. On the other hand, the International Energy Agency—the global expert on energy stats—is equally unequivocal that the development of any new gas or oil field is incompatible with net zero by 2050. Perhaps the Minister could help us here and confirm what his department’s objectives will be with regard to future licensing. Will it adhere to IEA advice, aim for net zero and end future exploration, or will it go along with the oil industry and keep on drilling?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We will go along with our net-zero commitment. I do not know how many times I have to repeat this for the benefit of the Liberal Democrats, but under all of the climate change scenarios, including that towards net zero, we will remain a net importer of oil and gas during that period. The choice that faces us is whether we wish to import them or produce them domestically and gain the tax revenues from that. I really cannot see why this is such a difficult concept for the Liberal Democrats to grasp.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister surely must know that the target of net zero means reduced consumption; whether it is produced in this country or imported, it is still our consumption. How is that compatible with the Oil and Gas Authority’s target of “maximum economic recovery” of oil from the North Sea? Bearing in mind that it takes so long to commission and decommission North Sea oil and gas plants, is it not about time that the Oil and Gas Authority changed its target now to give it time to achieve net-zero carbon when it is due?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I actually agree with the first part of the noble Lord’s question that production from the North Sea is on a declining pathway. Our usage is, of course, on a declining pathway as we transition to net zero.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as set out in the register. Would it not be helpful to explain even more clearly to the public that none of the needed energy decarbonisation or transition is going to happen smoothly without a proper back-up of swing suppliers and fuel sources? Unless there is a prudent level of continued investment in fossil fuel sources, we will see many more of the violent fuel and energy price spikes we have now, which cause considerable stress and hardship for millions of households experiencing this every day and threaten our national security.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know my noble friend speaks with great authority on this as a former Energy Minister himself, and I agree with him. Of course, the ultimate solution to the problem of high gas prices is to use less of it. Indeed, we are doing that, and we are continuing to develop our renewable sources. We have one of the largest productions of renewable sources in the western world. However, fossil fuel generation, such as unabated gas-fired generation, currently plays an important role in keeping Britain’s electricity system secure and stable. The development of clean energy technologies means that it will be used less frequently in future, but it will still be required.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I think it is the Minister, rather than the Liberal Democrats, who may be failing to grasp the implications of the Government’s own policy. But is the Minister aware that if warming is kept to well below 2 degrees in line with the Paris Agreement, new oilfields such as Cambo will become stranded assets? In the light of that, will the Government ensure that the risks that such stranded assets pose to financial stability are properly reflected in increased capital adequacy requirements for those institutions that continue to finance them?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We have a role in the licensing of future developments, but whether to proceed with them is, of course, a commercial decision for the operators concerned. I am sure they will bear the noble Lord’s comments in mind. I am sure many of the big companies would not wish to end up with stranded assets either.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am sure the Minister will say that it is right that we await the Oil and Gas Authority’s scrutiny report looking into the proposed Cambo oil and gas field. But surely it never made sense for the Government to consider progressing with the plans, especially in the run-up to COP 26 and now post COP. I reiterate: will the Government listen to the science and, starting with Cambo, help workers and industry wind down production of oil and gas in the North Sea?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness answers her own question—indeed, I would say, “Let’s wait for the decision of OPRED before we make any final observations about this.” But, as I mentioned to her colleague earlier, at the same time we are proceeding with our ground-breaking North Sea Transition Deal to ensure exactly what she asks: to help workers to transition away from these industries in the future.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Homes: Environmental Standards
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
The Government’s ambition is for as many homes as possible to reach EPC band C by 2035. Our Simple Energy Advice service provides tailored advice and guidance for home owners and landlords on how to improve the energy performance of their homes and has received over 1.7 million users to date. We are also looking to improve the tailoring of recommendations on energy performance certificates to individual properties.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, it is a mammoth task to bring the many millions of homes in this country up to the standard suggested by the Minister. What are the Government going to do to ensure that we have enough trained workers, apprentices and others to do the work? Surely we need a massive training programme for the skilled workforce that is required to bring our homes up to standard.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord: we need exactly that. We are working both through the Department for Education, with some of its training investments, and with many of the private sector providers which are also introducing new schemes, apprenticeships and training even as we speak. I went up to visit some of them only a few weeks ago, and the way industry is coming to the fore with these advancements is very impressive.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, we are going to need a massive step change if we are to achieve reductions in emissions. An important element of that will be providing financial incentives for people to adopt the new technologies and get their houses sorted out, such as the money people can make from selling surplus energy from their solar panels. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of other small, domestic, green energy production methods which might help us offset emissions from the built environment?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is right to draw attention to some of the export guarantee schemes that we already have. I also draw his attention to the boiler upgrade scheme, which we will be introducing from April next year. That is £450 million of straight, upfront grants for people to install heat pumps.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I remind my noble friend that I am president of National Energy Action. Does he agree that much can be achieved through building regulations to make houses more energy efficient and more resilient to flooding? Does he share my disappointment that the review for sustainable drainage systems will not be concluded till autumn next year? Will he use his good offices to ensure that the regulations are brought forward by the middle of next year at the very latest?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her question. She is right that building regulations have an important role to play. From 2025, the future homes standard will ensure that new homes produce at least 75% lower CO2 emissions compared to those built to current standards.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister indicate when the Government will publish a long-term strategy for the sector, so that home owners and landlords seeking to meet new energy-efficient standards do not find in the years to come that they have to undertake further work to meet changed standards?
Lord Callanan (Con)
With regard to landlords, we consulted in the summer on raising energy performance standards of rented property to EPC C by 2028. I am happy to tell the noble Baroness that we will publish our response to that consultation shortly.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Does the Minister agree that, given the house price variability in the UK, landlords who operate in the lower-income market see this as an investment that will not be returned, as it is usually the tenant who pays the fuel bill? Does he agree that more incentives might be needed to meet targets in these areas? Can he reassure us that the—dare I say it—failed one-size-fits-all funding systems we have had previously will not be repeated and that local authorities will have more genuine autonomy to meet local needs and overcome their particular local barriers?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. Local authorities are of course one of our key delivery partners through many of the schemes that we currently subsidise. We are spending billions of pounds on home upgrade grants, the local authority delivery scheme, the social housing decarbonisation fund and so on, and local authorities are our key partner in those projects.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Housing retrofitting is arguably one of the toughest infrastructure challenges the UK has ever seen. Concerted public sector intervention will be required to have any chance of achieving the legally binding and local net-zero targets. I was pleased to hear that the Minister visited Leeds last week to see schemes that are developing on the ground. However, we had to wait months for the Government’s heat and buildings strategy, and it was a massive letdown when it was published in October. Unfortunately, there was no replacement for the ill-fated Green Homes Grant for home owners. Can the Minister simply explain where the long-term retrofit plan is?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The heat and buildings strategy is our long-term retrofit plan. Within that, we announced a number of forthcoming consultations; previous questions have referred to the consultation on the private rented sector. The noble Baroness referenced the visit I made to Leeds last week to look at the local authority installed measures that are going so well. We continue to invest large sums of money in these projects.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
The Government propose that private landlords will be required to pay up to £10,000 to ensure that the properties they rent out have an energy performance rating of C or better. Given that NRLA data suggests that the net annual rental income for landlords is under £4,400 a year, what financial support will be available for private landlords to make the energy improvements required of them?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There are a number of financial packages that private landlords letting to low-income tenants can take advantage of; I referred to some of the schemes earlier. Private sector landlords are entitled to take advantage of them, but the noble Lord is right and points to one of the dilemmas in the private rented sector, which is that the investment is made by landlords but the benefit is gained by tenants through lower fuel bills.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I hear the optimism and the claims, but, sadly, these are not carried through into government action and the Government know that full well. The Public Accounts Committee reported yesterday that the Government’s
“Green Homes Grant … Scheme … underperformed badly … and risks damaging … future efforts”
to deliver net zero. It also said that it is “not convinced” that BEIS has
“fully acknowledged the scale of its failures with this scheme.”
If you do not understand how or how badly you have failed, how will you ever deliver this green stuff that you clearly do not understand?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry the noble Baroness thinks we do not understand this “green stuff”—we have her advice to rely on, constantly, and she tells us all about it. To be serious, she is of course right that the National Audit Office acknowledged that the Green Homes Grant scheme did not deliver at the pace we would have expected. Nevertheless, we did deliver some 80,000 vouchers and spent some £300 million on precisely the kind of measures that I know the noble Baroness would support. We have certainly learned lessons from the Green Homes Grant and are taking those forward in future grant schemes, such as the boiler upgrade scheme to install more heat pumps, which I am sure the noble Baroness will also welcome.
Covid-19: Vaccination in Developing Countries
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support COVID-19 vaccination programmes in developing countries following the emergence of the Omicron variant.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the new variant omicron is showing us yet again that no one is safe until everyone is safe. Global vaccination continues to be vital for our defences against the pandemic and we are committed to making sure that people in the poorest countries get vaccines. We are a leading supporter of COVAX, which has delivered over 483 million vaccines to low and middle-income countries. This will rise to 1.8 billion doses by mid-2022.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am slightly confused because I am hearing very different stats coming out. Affinity said yesterday that we have in fact delivered to developing countries only 11% of the vaccines we have promised, so I wonder when the remaining 89% might be delivered. Is the Minister aware that the Anglican Communion is working hard with local leaders in grass-roots churches right across Africa and parts of Asia on overcoming vaccine hesitation? Would he and his colleagues be willing to meet some of our team to see how we can roll these programmes out faster?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. I do not recognise those particular stats, but I can give him some others which perhaps may reassure him. As I said earlier, the UK is one of the largest donors to the COVAX advance market commitment, which supports access to Covid-19 vaccines for up to 92 low and middle-income countries, 46 of which are in Africa. Our commitment of £548 million will support the COVAX AMC to deliver up to 1.8 billion doses to those countries in early 2022. We have already delivered 16 million doses through COVAX and directly to recipient countries, of which over 6 million have been delivered to 14 countries in Africa. Some 5.8 million doses are with COVAX and are in the process of being allocated and delivered and a further 9 million will be delivered to COVAX in the coming weeks, direct from AstraZeneca. Countries receiving those doses include Kenya, Nigeria and Mozambique.
I apologise for my long answer but, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned, many factors contribute to the slow vaccine rollout and one of those is vaccine hesitancy. I pay tribute to the Church for the extensive work it does on both Covid and other diseases, in particular in Africa, and of course we would be more than happy to meet and talk about this.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this is a real north-south issue. On Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, told me that the UK did not have a stockpile of vaccine doses and the supply chain is managed carefully to ensure that donated vaccines are able to be used by recipient countries. So, can the Minister explain today why hundreds of thousands of vaccine doses reached their expiry date and have been destroyed rather than distributed to countries that need them? Will he also reflect on what Gordon Brown said: is it true that the UK has 33 million vaccine doses that we could immediately deliver to the rest of the world without impacting our own vaccine programme?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I do not know the answer to the noble Lord’s second question. As regards the expiry date issue, decisions on donations are driven by the availability of vaccines from domestic supply. Once the Health Secretary is confident that vaccines are available to donate directly to partners, the Foreign Secretary prioritises how they are shared. Obviously, avoiding vaccine expiry and wastage is a UK core objective, determining when and where we share or deploy doses, and we strive to observe WHO guidelines on that. No vaccines will be shared without an agreement with recipients that there is sufficient time for distribution and deployment before expiry. To expand a little: obviously, it would be much more sensible to manufacture in Africa, and the UK is working with the new Partnership for African Vaccine Manufacturing to develop its road map for African vaccine manufacturing over the next year.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his position; it is the first time I have been able to do so. But does he not understand that at the very time our Government are asking our health networks to work together for a third jab, the Government’s cuts to health networks in developing countries—40% at a minimum, wiping out programmes across many countries—are inhibiting the distribution of the first and second jabs to those countries? The Independent Commission for Aid Impact said that this was a direct impact on the world’s ability to vaccinate. Can the Government at the very least review and reverse the shameful cuts to the health networks for the very people who need them most at this time?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot commit the Government to all those things, but I can tell him a bit about some of the things we are doing, which I hope will reassure him a little. He will also understand that this is not necessarily my specialist subject so I ask him to bear with me. We have deployed UK emergency medical teams to 11 African countries to provide training and clinical advice. We have also deployed a UK public health rapid support team to provide specialist technical assistance to public health agencies in Nigeria, the Gambia, Tunisia and the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. We are continuing to provide technical support to build genomic sequencing and country capability through the UK’s new variant assessment platform, including in African countries. We are doing a lot.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, when the Government responded last year to our Select Committee’s report on UK relations with sub-Saharan Africa, they stated that
“we are investing up to £20 million in the African Union’s ‘Africa anti-COVID 19 fund’”.
In the light of omicron, can my noble friend update the House on investment in that fund and whether it has been affected in any way by our cuts to overseas development assistance?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am pleased to be able to give my noble friend a good answer: the £20 million contribution to the African Union’s Covid-19 response fund was not affected by the ODA cuts. The first contribution of £5 million was disbursed in July 2020 when the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the African Union agreed an MoU. The remaining £15 million was disbursed in March 2021, so the money was disbursed in full.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, the World Health Organization has said that developing countries urgently need not only vaccines but health- care workers to deliver them. Yet developed countries continue to rely on healthcare workers’ migration to deliver their own services. The Nursing and Midwifery Council data shows that the number of nurses coming to work in the UK from overseas has increased significantly. In the last year, the increase has been 225% from Africa, meaning that 3,503 nurses have joined the NMC registry, driven largely by four countries—Nigeria, Ghana, Zimbabwe and Kenya. These nurses are extremely welcome; however, can the Minister explain the Government’s commitment not only to share vaccines but to ensure that there are healthcare workers to deliver jabs into arms in developing countries? Is investment through overseas aid in training and retaining healthcare workers part of future plans?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question, and it is an incredibly important one. Clearly, one of the factors of slow vaccine rollout is a lack of ability to distribute and administer. The UK Government are preparing a cross-departmental support offer to multiple sub-Saharan African countries, including: scientist-to-scientist conversations to provide technical advice to Governments; genomic sequencing and variant assessment support; medical and technical personnel surge response; and in-kind donations of PPE and other medical supplies. I also go back to the answer I gave to the noble Lord earlier about sending emergency medical teams to 11 African countries and the fact that we have deployed a UK public health rapid support team to provide specialist technical assistance.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise the deep sense of anger and betrayal in southern Africa over the rich world’s handling of the omicron variant? Is the response of economy-crippling travel restrictions and doubling down on vaccine boosters, when many in southern Africa have not been able to get even their first shots, not only deeply immoral but utterly counterproductive in encouraging countries to be transparent in the future and preventing new variants emerging, both of which are crucial if we are to get off this Covid treadmill?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I think, actually, the first duty of a Government is to protect their own population. I do not regard that as deeply immoral. However, I agree that there is clearly inequity between the rich and the less well-developed parts of the world. With regard to the travel bans, we are putting in place a lot of economic support for Africa, as I have already detailed to some extent. There are other aspects of it as well, such as debt relief, and we will continue with that support. On the travel ban itself, we acted fast, in line with many other western countries.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, given the global agreement from the scientific community that Covid-19 badly affects older adults and those with obesity and underlying health issues in particular, I found the decision to use millions of doses of vaccines on children under 16—who are not really at risk—here and in Europe and elsewhere most odd. This was not supported by the JCVI or the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Nevertheless, does my noble friend the Minister agree that to divert future millions of doses for the use of adults across the third world and other countries with a minimal uptake would be a more positive move towards protecting them and addressing the catastrophic effects of this deadly virus?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her question. I think I have already explained and outlined the extensive efforts the UK is making as regards exporting vaccines. I am afraid I am not qualified to comment on the advisability or otherwise of vaccinating particular cohorts of the population. That, as I am sure my noble friend will appreciate, is significantly beyond my brief.
Power Outages: North of England
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the ongoing power outages across the North of England.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, I declare that I am a customer of Northern Powergrid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
In the face of damage to infrastructure unprecedented in recent years, network engineering staff have been working tirelessly in challenging conditions to make repairs and restore power as quickly as possible. As of this morning, fewer than 20,000 people remain without power, and more than 950,000 have had their electricity restored. The Secretary of State has commissioned his officials to conduct a post-incident review to learn lessons and improve system resilience and customer support.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer. He will be aware that there was simply no way to report a power cut or to receive information as to how the planned power cut might be expected to be terminated. There was no mobile signal and, obviously, there was no access because there was no power to the internet, which are the two main means by which customers are asked to report a power outage. Will my noble friend ensure that the military engineers are sent in to support Northern Powergrid and others responsible for the remaining thousands of customers who are without power, and ensure that a rumour going around that some will be without power until the new year is absolutely untrue? In the long term, will my noble friend ensure that we reduce reliance on overhead power lines and the overhead transmission of power, and seek to put these giant electricity wires underground, as is the case in other parts of the country?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, there are many lessons to be learned from the past week. It has been extremely challenging in the north of the country. I am from there myself and well aware of the issues: many people have contacted me about it. I just say to the noble Baroness that more than 4,000 engineers have been working to repair the damage, 750 generators have been deployed to provide emergency power and vulnerable customers have been prioritised for support. There are clearly issues about being able to contact Northern Powergrid, in particular; it was overwhelmed by the volume of calls. These were exceptionally strong winds of more than 100 miles per hour, and it is the most damage that has been done to the system for 15 years.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, obviously, the capacity to respond is in question, and I am pleased to hear the Minister say that there will be a review ongoing, but the review is no good to the people who have lost power today. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, there are rumours—indeed, statements—that this could go on for some people right up to Christmas and the new year. Speaking in the House, the Secretary of State was unable to say whether that was true. He said
“I will do everything in my power to ensure that this does not happen.”—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/21; col. 924.]
Given the structure of the industry, perhaps the Minister can say what is in the power of the Secretary of State and what practical help he has given to the people who still do not have power.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My colleague, Minister Hands, went up to visit the area yesterday, spoke to many people who had been affected and met many of the engineers who have been working around the clock over the past week to restore power. As the noble Lord said, there are a number of lessons that we need to learn from this. It was fairly unprecedented, but of course that is no compensation to the people affected, concentrated in the north of England and Scotland, who have been suffering greatly—I have heard many of their stories myself. We must give any resources or support that we can to the companies concerned. Restoring power is a complicated, technical exercise. We need to ensure that the people doing it, who are very skilled personnel, are working safely and we will want to support them in every possible way.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, this was a very bad series of storms in the north-east. I do not think it is unprecedented, because I recall a similar one in the south-east of England in 1987—some older noble Lords will remember that. It sometimes took weeks for the power to be reconnected. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said that the answer is to put more power lines underground. Is there not a conflict between the enormous cost of putting power underground and the fact that we do not like cutting trees down? Trees tend to fall on wires, railway lines and other such things. Is there a solution to this, or have we just got to accept that we love our trees, they will knock the wires down occasionally and we just have to accept that there will be delays and congratulate all the people trying to put it right?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I hope we will not just accept it. Balancing the different factors that the noble Lord mentioned, we need to put as many cables underground as possible, but he is right that that is much more expensive than running overhead lines. We need to do what we can to improve the resilience of the system, but I am sure we would meet many objections if the solution was to cut down more trees near power lines.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how many people are still without power—the figure of 50,000 has been mentioned; whether the Army has been asked to go in to support those people who are cut off in this awful winter weather; and what plans the Government have, given the prospect of climate change, with such storms likely to be increasingly prevalent, to forestall or deal with situations of this nature that arise in future?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My understanding is that there are currently about 20,000 people who are still without power. As I said, 950,000 have had their power restored. I understand the calls for the Army to be deployed, and its abilities are legendary, but it is important to recognise that in work such as this, safety priorities mean that only suitably qualified engineers can work on electricity network infrastructure. The military resource cannot support the restoration of electricity supplies, and network distribution operators have confirmed that military assistance is not necessary in this case.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister give us some idea of how much it would cost to put all these power lines underground?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not have that figure to hand. The noble Lord, with his work on infrastructure, will know that the cost of putting power lines underground is much greater than that of overhead lines, and these are difficult balances that have to be struck in any particular circumstance, particularly in rural communities or if the lines are going long-distance across the countryside. To put them all underground would be immensely expensive. If my officials have access to any figures, I will certainly let him have them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the Minister said that “we” need to ensure more resilience, but of course we are talking here about private companies, whose entire focus is on private profits. Will the Government ensure that regulators force those companies to build more resilience into the system?
Lord Callanan (Con)
They are indeed private companies, but resilience is in their interests as well as ours, and they are very tightly regulated through Ofgem. They will be seeking to learn all the lessons they can so that the system is suitably resilient in future.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I feel increasingly frustrated by the lack of appreciation of the fact that many residents in the rural north have felt utterly abandoned by the Government. What have the Government done practically to support people who have had no heating, no water and no hot food? It is not good enough—I am really sorry to say this. The Government knew the extent of the crisis in advance. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, asked about the Army and the Minister talked about the fact its personnel were not qualified electricians. Surely, however, the Army could have gone to rural areas and brought in gas heaters, hot food, generators—anything to mitigate the impact. It has been appalling for many people.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know that it has been appalling for many people; I come from the area myself and have spoken to many MPs in those areas. I have been contacted by many residents. There are Members of this House who also live in the north and have suffered. With regard to the noble Baroness’s questions, we are giving all the support we can to the companies responsible for delivering this, with the appropriately trained engineers. In answer to her question about generators, more than 750 have been deployed since the incident began. Almost 1 million customers experienced disruption, but 950,000 have had their power restored. As I said, 20,000 people are still, unfortunately, cut off from electricity supply, but I know that engineers are working at this moment to try to get them restored.
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the sub-judice resolution.
Later today, the House will debate a Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, on the detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Noble Lords may be aware that there are active legal proceedings in the High Court between International Military Services Ltd and Iran’s Ministry of Defence. I have exercised the discretion given to me in respect of the resolution on matters sub judice to allow full reference to those proceedings, as they concern issues of national importance.
BBC: Government Support
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bragg
That this House takes note of the BBC’s value to the United Kingdom and a wider global audience and the case for Her Majesty’s Government giving it greater support.
Lord Bragg (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the House very much for the opportunity to introduce this debate. It is a privilege to open a discussion on such a subject.
I work for BBC Radio 4 and Sky Arts as a freelancer. I joined the BBC in 1961 as a trainee. My first television posting was to Huw Wheldon, editor and presenter of “Monitor”, the arts programme. Huw was a man full of terse advice, chiefly plucked from his distinguished military career. One example is: “You ignore the obvious at your peril.” He also said that the BBC is the “sum of its programmes”.
I begin by stating obvious things about the BBC. It is regularly sniped at, sliced up, and its parts disparaged. It is blamed for this, that and the other, and every current malaise. It purpose is often punctured. Few of its detractors take on the obvious—the full darts board—and concentrate exclusively on a double top to make a splash. I think that the BBC is unique in the world of broadcasting; so, in my experience, do many world broadcasters. Its strengths are even more valuable now when all around us, at this tipping point in our history, so many other institutions seem to be failing.
No other single broadcasting company in the world is as targeted, comprehensive, Hydra-headed, cross-class, successful on several levels and knitted into the audiences as the BBC. Of course it makes mistakes and stumbles, and is subjected to justifiable criticism, but on the whole, over almost a century, this institution has grown into one of the most reliable staples of our troubled society. It is all the better for being neither propagandist nor fawning on its public. Despite many assaults, it is still independent and arm’s length from a Government who are slow to praise, quick to blame and sometimes eager to interfere.
At a time like this, the BBC deserves to be appreciated for what it really is and not presented as the obstacle to certain factions, corporations and individuals who see it getting in the way of their own broadcasting ambitions. Unfashionable though it is, it seems that, by and large, the BBC’s ambition is now as it was when Lord Reith invented it almost a century ago, which is to reach all of the people some of the time and many of the people all of the time but, most of all, to weave itself into the texture of this country and serve it, which the BBC has always attempted to do. It is called public service. That original vision was to inform, educate and entertain the UK without favour or prejudice. It was a bold and tall order but, on the whole, it has been steadily pursued.
Reliable statistics show that the BBC is still on track. The findings are remarkable. The BBC is used by, on average, 90% of UK adults and 80% of young adults every week. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the BBC extended its role as a broadcaster to bring programmes to audiences safely, while creating new shows and events. Nearly 6 million people watched “Lockdown Learning”, and 45% named the BBC as their number one source for information and news on Covid. The nearest runner-up was 13%. Who else would have done that?
Radio 4 is the UK’s most listened-to speech station. In any year, it broadcasts over 3,200 hours of news and current affairs, 375 hours of documentaries, and new strands of drama and the arts. Its many experts and reporters at flashpoints all around the world keep us up to date. There are news programmes that feature probing, feisty discussions that skilfully dice with impartiality, bias and wokeism on issues of the moment. There are programmes on science, the arts, philosophy and sociology that pick out some of the most relevant intellectual arguments of the day.
At the BBC’s pinnacle are the Reith lectures, which are currently on air, but it is also in the context of quizzes, comedies and quirky niche shows that make many people’s day. I see it as an ingenious, illogical patchwork, inspired by the tastes of its audiences—from “Strictly” to “Panorama” to David Attenborough. Half the output of Radio 3 is live or specially recorded music. Last year alone, 50 new musical works were commissioned. Then there are the magnificent Proms and the BBC orchestras. This directly feeds into the quality, wealth and reach of classical music-making in this country. Without BBC support, that would deflate like a burst balloon.
Another example is BBC Radio 2, the most listened-to of the BBC radio channels, with high production and presenting values in popular culture. Oh dear: some who want the BBC to be exclusive rather disapprove of popular culture. But what is wrong with it? I would like to know. Popular music can be transformational and Radio 2 satisfies millions with its carefully orchestrated shows in a vital aspect of the arts. It is part of the BBC’s broad culture.
BBC television drama, such as “Line of Duty”, “Small Axe”, “Sherlock”, “Doctor Who”, “Call the Midwife”, “I May Destroy You”, “Normal People” and “Killing Eve”, hold their own in world television drama, despite the jumbo bombers coming across the Atlantic, powered by budgets that could buy a small country. Along with the Americans, we mop up the prizes. BBC drama is at the heart of the outstanding and profitable arts, media and entertainment industry in this country. More than 2 million highly and particularly skilled people are employed in the sector. They bring back profits in the billions—more than many of our great industries.
I wonder why the Government do not double the subsidies—or should we call them investments?—in the arts and the BBC. These areas could be at the forefront of an energised British recovery. They have grown unstoppably since 1945. It is not too fanciful to imagine the arts, universities and media—culture—becoming the dominant part of our economy before too long. Why not play to our strengths now? The future is already here. We need to recognise it, back it, celebrate it and hang on for the ride.
We get all of this from the BBC for about 40p a day. By the time one adds together the basic subscriptions just for Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+ and Apple TV, that alone is more than double the cost of the licence fee, despite the limited range of their programmes. The BBC can also produce big figures when it has to: 25 million people watched Euro 2020; 25.8 million people watched the last Wimbledon on BBC TV; and over 28 million people come to the BBC every evening for their entertainment on an average day.
The BBC World Service is a triumph. Almost a billion people listen to its voice—our voice—which carries authority around the world. Yet, for incomprehensible reasons, the Government are presiding over cutting its budget and producers are being forced out. At such a crucial moment in our history, it beggars belief. I am tempted to say that if around the world our Government were accorded the same respect as the BBC, we would be home and dry.
In another area, the BBC is being resolute in its determination to nurture diversity on radio and television nationwide. Greg Dyke, a previous director-general of the BBC, called it “hideously white and middle class”. That is being steadily eroded in London and the regions —an underrated part of the BBC.
So why is the BBC so often attacked, and why by the Government? It makes no sense. Over the last decade, the BBC’s income has been cut by 31% in real terms through the freeze in the licence fee from 2010 to 2017. The Government have stopped paying for the World Service and removed the funding for free licenses. In short, the Government have fleeced the licence fee paying public to dig themselves out of a hole in social services.
The multiplication of new channels continues to test the BBC but, on the creative side, it has not buckled. The press, some of which has its own fish to fry, keeps up a relentless offensive against the BBC. Sometimes the criticism is fair, and the BBC has often benefited from competition, such as when ITV came in and challenged the BBC on its news and documentary values. Sometimes it can seem that the BBC is taking on too much. Can it still, as Lord Reith hoped, serve all the people? The answer is in the programmes. The BBC is not letting that down. Many of those programmes stand up with the best on the spectrum wherever one looks.
This Government seem bent on making the BBC weaker at the moment, when every indicator suggests that the opposite course would be the wiser. The Government seem to be ignorant of the BBC’s deeply held strengths and the affection in which it is held in this country for its reliability, talent, fun, originality and the feeling of being part of a nation that it engenders. It belongs to us, the licence fee payers.
Recently, it has sometimes seemed that, sadly, we are becoming a lesser country by the year. I hope that the BBC is not allowed to become part of this surrender to a creeping deterioration. Indeed, I believe it could be one of the forces that leads by example the fight against what is happening and organises us to get out of this mire. It comes down to what sort of country we want this to be. The BBC has earned our respect and repaid our support, in war and peace, over many years. It has built itself in our image. Surely, now that it is so clearly up against it, we cannot let it down.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, it is a huge honour and privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. I know that this is sometimes a pro forma that people say in these debates, but his has been a reassuring voice throughout my life: informing, educating and entertaining. He is a genuine polymath, as I discovered when I once appeared on his show on the anniversary of the Great Charter. He is one of those people who can take your special subject and argue as though it were also his. His has been a life of public service.
I do not think that anyone of us here would disagree with the strengths he has identified in our national broadcaster. The question is whether, as implied in the Motion for debate, these strengths depend on more government support and subsidy. Very often, government support, which is always well intentioned, ends up having a very different effect. There was a time in this country when it was thought that it was the role of government to install telephones, to manage airlines, to build cars. Those things did not work out very well —for the same reason that some of the rival broadcasters the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, mentioned are outperforming some of the older ones in audience share.
How do we preserve the strengths of our national broadcaster, while allowing it to enter into an age of streaming, Netflix, YouTube and all the other innovations? I do not think that my children are ever going to own a television set—it just is not how young people expect to watch programmes these days. To them, the idea of a poll tax on the population belongs—as it literally does—to a previous century. It made perfect sense when there was only one broadcaster. It is much more difficult to justify today.
There has always been a traditional attack on the BBC from some in my party on the grounds that it is biased, partial and so on. It is a line of reasoning that goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson’s observation that it is sinful to force a man to furnish money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves. I hope it is still okay to quote the third President, as his statue is taken down in New York City Hall. He had some useful things to say about this, but that is not really my argument today. I do not think it matters nearly as much that the big, flagship news and current affairs programmes have been losing audience share. There is now a multiplicity of broadcasters. Out of the cacophony of differing interpretations, we can usually discern something close to the truth. We have that pluralism that is so necessary for impartiality. The problem is simply that we are trying to defend a 20th-century behemoth as though the technological changes of the last generation had not happened.
The question for the BBC is whether it can retrench and defend what it does well, rather than squandering its resources and capital defending things that are no longer sustainable. For example, do we really need a state broadcaster engaging in local radio? That area was perfectly well served by the private sector before. Do we need all these unbelievably unfunny comedy programmes on BBC2 and Radio 4? Are they a core part of what makes us a nation, shaped and defined by this relationship? Can we not retrench and make the line more defensible? We still have five or six years left of the existing funding system. I hope that figures within the corporation will use these years to think imaginatively about how to go with the changes, rather than being dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world. If there is a future for a state broadcaster, it will have to be more agile, cheaper and apter for the demands of our current age.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing his timely debate in such a comprehensive and authoritative way. Although I do not agree with many of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, I follow him in saying that no one has done more than my noble friend Lord Bragg successfully to demonstrate the quality of public service broadcasting in this country, through his own very distinguished programmes.
I must declare my own, more modest interests, having been employed by the BBC over many years in various roles, as a producer and reporter. I want to mention that today because the corporation’s record as a good employer is rarely mentioned, and I think it should be. For example, even many decades ago, when I was a very junior producer, there was almost no discernible gender bias in the corporation. Even in the 1970s, women at the BBC were not treated in any way other than as equals. Although it is obvious that we have not yet seen a woman director-general, none the less, there are many women visible at senior levels. My noble friend Lord Bragg has already mentioned diversity. Just last month, the BBC was the only broadcasting organisation ranked as a top employer in this year’s social mobility index. When we talk about the multiplicity of broadcasting organisations, I hope that this will be noted.
In introducing this debate, my noble friend referred to the invaluable role played by the BBC during our ongoing national pandemic crisis, but I want to focus a little on the global role it has played, because that has been possibly even more significant. It is worth remembering that, through its multimedia platforms—and they are multimedia platforms—the international news services now reach record levels, with 450 million adults using them every week. Today, the total worldwide audience is a staggering 489 million and is confidently expected to reach 500 million in 2022. Vast numbers of people have accessed the special programming designed to help populations, particularly those in less well-developed countries, to navigate and understand the dangers of the pandemic. For example, a daily podcast—the coronavirus global update—is coupled with a mini, specialist radio bulletin, with individual separate versions for India, Africa and Latin America. Enormous efforts have been made to tackle the wild rumours and many myths about the virus—and indeed the vaccines—which have spread frighteningly quickly, particularly in vulnerable societies. The Trusted News Initiative is well established, and BBC Africa has set up its own dedicated misinformation hub. In general, the World Service has greatly expanded its work on media literacy to try to undermine the influences of so-called fake news.
Together, as my noble friend has said, all these global services play a major role in enhancing the United Kingdom’s international reputation. In the five- year review of the World Service, published in October, new research showed that
“awareness of the BBC … is strongly linked to … positive perceptions of”
this country. This is soft power at its very best, and the Government should give it their utmost support—the support for which my noble friend calls in today’s Motion.
However, although the Government’s autumn spending review mentioned continuing to invest in the World Service, no specific funding figures have been confirmed beyond next March. This must be immediately addressed. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will be able to give us positive, official information about the next financial grant. I hope that it will be increased, so that the BBC can successfully go on expanding its international role and remain one of this country’s strongest brands.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, first, I send my good wishes to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool on making his maiden speech. My parents were both born in Old Swan; they gave their allegiance to the cathedral at the other end of Hope Street. Successive bishops of Liverpool have worked hard to eliminate religious intolerance, and Hope Street is well named in housing those two cathedrals.
My first task is to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for introducing this debate with such authority. His words of wisdom, delivered in that mellifluous Cumbrian accent, always put me in mind of another iconic author and broadcaster: JB Priestley. The noble Lord’s “In Our Time” programmes are not just brilliant radio broadcasts in their own right; they will be repeated as source material for the study of all aspects of our social, scientific and cultural life for decades to come.
In the world of fake news, it is more important than ever to safeguard the impartiality of broadcast news. In its 100-year history, the BBC has been able to rely on cross-party consensus to support and protect our values. It would be a tragedy if that consensus were to break down now. As I have said before, much depends on the courage of those on the Government Benches to defend the BBC from this death by a thousand cuts.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, one area where this consensus still seems to exist is in the recognition of the soft power and global influence that we receive from the BBC World Service. Today’s Motion
“takes note of the BBC’s value to the United Kingdom and a wider global audience”.
It would be helpful if the Minister could spell out in his reply the ongoing support and financial commitment to the World Service, which achieved its highest-ever global audience, of nearly half a billion people last year. Not only that, but all the research shows that listeners and viewers worldwide believe and trust the BBC. The research also showed that World Service users have positive perceptions of the UK and are more likely to use British goods and services.
Around the world, the BBC is associated with distinctive British values of fairness, integrity and impartiality. The quality of its coverage is underpinned by a two-way flow of experience and expertise between the BBC at home and the World Service. We all know from our own experience that, whenever a crisis hits the headlines, wherever it is in the world, people will switch on the BBC to find out the facts. We also know that to be true because of the way in which authoritarians seek to block BBC broadcasts and expel BBC journalists.
Brand Finance’s respected Global Soft Power Index said in its latest report that:
“The UK ranks 1st globally in the Media & Communications pillar—overtaking the US this year to clinch the top spot”.
It went on to say that the BBC
“is arguably the most respected and well-known media outlet in the world … and acts as one of the nation’s greatest soft power tools.”
That is the asset that this Government and Parliament must defend and nourish. We know the benefits that the BBC brings us, both home and abroad. We know who its enemies are and the damage that they have caused elsewhere to other broadcasting ecologies. Since this is a Labour Party debate, I think I can quote Nye Bevan: “Why look into the crystal ball when you can read the book?”
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I quote the former Secretary of State for DCMS, who said in November 2020:
“When people around the world think of Britain, they think of the Royal family, and the Premier League. And they think of the BBC. From the moment its first radio transmitter crackled into life a century ago, our oldest broadcaster has been a steadfast national institution, a champion of British values across the globe … The pandemic has illustrated what the BBC does best. It has helped us educate our children, and been a trusted source of information on the virus. And it has provided a national gathering place for millions tuning in to hear government updates or watch the first live Premier League game”.
The value of universal service broadcasting, with the BBC at its heart, has been essential over the past two years. The BBC has delivered on its mission to “inform, educate and entertain”.
If you put it in context, in real terms, the licence fee costs less today than it did a decade ago, yet the amount of BBC services has increased in that time. You get 10 TV services, 10 national radio stations, 40 local radio stations, plus everything on iPlayer, BBC Sounds, the BBC website, the World Service, all for just over £3 a week. In many ways, it is phenomenal value for money, which is why more than 90% of people in the UK use the BBC every week.
With fake news abounding around the world, one of the biggest advantages of the BBC is that it is seen as impartial and trusted news and information, which is more important than ever before. It is the best at countering misinformation and fake news, supporting local communities and, of course, providing educational services—particularly during lockdown, when they reached 4.5 million pupils. Of course, providing high-quality entertainment is key, whether that is coverage of the Proms, the FA Cup, the World Cup, the Olympics, the jubilee, Remembrance Sunday, “Line of Duty”, Sir David Attenborough—a national treasure—I could carry on.
The World Service matters a lot to me as someone born in India. My grandfather in Hyderabad listening to the World Service when I was a child is embedded in my memory; I can picture it now while I speak. Ongoing government investment in the World Service—in particular to boost digital, tackle disinformation and reach new audiences in India, Africa and the Middle East—has enabled BBC News to play a critical role in helping people across the globe safely navigate the Covid-19 pandemic. The BBC has strengthened its position in markets of need such as Iran, Afghanistan, Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where access to trusted impartial news is more important than ever. Its added value is £5 billion of economic output, according to KPMG, which reported that, for every £1 of direct economic activity generated by the BBC, there was £2.63 of economic output; and that, for every job it creates, a further 1.7 jobs are created.
We all know about the challenges that the BBC faces. We all know about the criticisms of it as well. However, at the heart of the BBC’s values are providing impartial news and information, supporting learning, showing the most creative, highest-quality output—the BBC is renowned for that and is a phenomenal example of it—and reflecting the United Kingdom, its culture and values. We are one of the most creative countries in the world. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for initiating this debate. He is a legend in his own lifetime and an example of Great British expertise.
During the pandemic, 84% of UK adults came to the BBC in a time of need during both lockdowns. Through its international audience, the BBC reaches 489 million people per week. That is almost half a billion people; it is absolutely phenomenal. As other speakers have said, the BBC is one of our strongest elements of soft power. When it comes to its reach, 12 new language services have been launched and—this is one of the most surprising statistics—a Reuters report showed that the BBC is the “most trusted news brand” in the United States, with it coming
“second only to local television news, and ahead of all major US news brands.”
The Soft Power 30 2019 ranking cited the BBC World Service as one of the two British institutions that are key to British soft power. The other tangible benefits are that it encourages people to do business with the UK and inspires people to visit the UK. It inspires international students to study in the UK; as a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Students and the president of UKCISA, I see this at first hand. Most importantly, the BBC is associated around the world with the amazing respect that Britain and we as a country have for fairness, integrity and impartiality.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to address your Lordships for the first time and on this subject, and for the privilege of following the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his kind words. I thank all noble Lords for the warmth of the welcome that I have received, and, for the quality of briefing and induction from the officers and staff of your Lordships’ House, which has been exemplary and profoundly helpful.
I speak as one whose first degree was in drama and theatre arts, and who was almost employed by the BBC as a trainee script editor in what was then called “English Regions Drama”, at the Pebble Mill studios in Birmingham, in 1975. With whatever wisdom, I chose instead to enter the ordained ministry of the Church, and there have been times when I have felt that I chose the lower calling. Forty-two years of ministry in six different dioceses have culminated in the enormous privilege of my being appointed Bishop of Liverpool in 2014. I have been preferred to your Lordships’ House late in my ministry, but I am very grateful to be here and to receive wisdom for at least a few months.
Among its many dimensions, I want to speak of what the BBC does uniquely in our fragmented public square. To me, the gift and value of public service broadcasting is a matter of form before it is a matter of content: it rests on the decision to assume a tone of voice. The value of the BBC to this nation and our global position is rooted in its decision to be calm, to choose a particular volume and quality of scrutiny and to sustain it, no matter how unpopular it may be.
I have described the public square as fragmented. Increasingly, it is one where to be opinionated is to be rewarded, and where volume and shrillness of tone have become praiseworthy in themselves. In such a world, it is surely the role of a public service communicator to still the waters so that they reflect the truth. Calm scrutiny will cause people with power, whoever and wherever they may be, whatever they may say, however loudly they may speak, one and all, to be uncomfortable. This applies as much to the Bishops of the Church of England as to anyone else.
Calm scrutiny is a gift, but it must also be proclaimed. In the Hebrew scriptures, we are told that
“Wisdom calls out in the street”.
To me, the impartiality of a public service broadcaster rests in impartiality of scrutiny and courage in scrutinising, rather than in attempting the even-handed presentation of increasingly strident points of view. In Liverpool, the work of my distinguished predecessors, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, and Bishop James Jones KBE, rested on this commending of quiet scrutiny in the face of riot after poverty or institutional defensiveness after tragedy, for example, or any other falling away from coherence, community and the common good.
Your Lordships will know of the recent terrorist incident in Liverpool. It faced us with a mystery. To this day, we do not know why that young man did what he did, and we may never know. In the face of that mystery, the response of the English media was diverse. For some, the journey of the young man concerned provided a fine opportunity for the naivety of people of faith to be exposed, or for the systems by which people seek refuge to be deplored. These words had little purchase in Liverpool, where a number of organs of commercial media have been deeply and permanently distrusted for 40 years.
The BBC, on the other hand, nationally and regionally, genuinely provided the impartial platform of scrutiny which I have described, and it continues to hold the significant trust of people across my community, where few other voices do. In this case, that trust rested on a readiness, particularly on the part of local BBC journalists, to explore on its own terms the self-understanding of communities of faith as places of God’s welcome. In other words, it rested on a platform of religious literacy.
The BBC is not perfect, but it should be treasured and supported. Having said and meant all these nice things about it, I also underline the urgent need for that religious literacy to be intentionally sustained and intentionally deepened, if the BBC is indeed to hold its value for a global audience in a world that remains, predominantly, a world of faith.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate on the occasion of his excellent maiden speech. He describes himself as a late arrival in this House, but we greet him with eagerness and look forward to further contributions. His speech emphasised calm thoughtfulness and scrutiny, and his approach epitomised what he advocated. We have much to look forward to. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, on securing this debate. His speech, like his broadcasts, epitomised all that is best in the BBC.
I declare an interest. My father worked for the BBC throughout his life, albeit in a humble capacity, away from the cameras and microphones. However, he instilled in me a reverence for the institution, and I still have a great affection for the BBC, even though that sentiment is not reciprocated. I admire the quality and breadth of its output and I have no desire to end the licence fee, although it may become more vulnerable through technological change, as my noble friend Lord Hannan pointed out.
None the less, the BBC should not be exempt from criticism, as the right reverend Prelate has just said. It is not perfect. Despite its tedious obsession with gender and racial diversity, the BBC suffers from a lack of diversity of opinion and an overwhelming liberal metropolitan bias. That manifests itself less in what is said than what is not said, the voices not heard, the questions not asked, the issues not addressed.
The three areas in which this bias and censorship are most blatant are the EU/Brexit, energy/climate change and immigration/skills. Time permits only brief examples of these. As far as the EU is concerned, last week on “Today”, Nick Robinson, who can be one of the most perceptive and rigorous of interviewers, interviewed the Irish Foreign Minister, who claimed that the EU’s proposals on Northern Ireland were far-reaching and would reduce checks on goods from GB to Northern Ireland by 80%. Nick Robinson could have asked whether the EU was offering to reduce existing checks by 80% or to reduce the demanded additional checks by 80%. Instead, he argued that the EU should not be making any concessions to the UK at all:
“Isn’t the problem with the concessions that the EU have made that they feed a sense in Downing Street that the EU only responds to threats? What those around Boris Johnson believe is that the EU blinks if you’re tough.”
I cannot imagine any other state broadcaster urging the Minister of a foreign country not to make any concessions towards his own country’s position, but that was the approach taken by Nick Robinson, without comment or subsequent apology.
On climate change, anyone who argues that there is a trade-off between the costs to poor people in current generations of achieving net zero and the benefits to future, far richer generations, is labelled a denier—even though the very existence of a trade-off means that you accept the science of global warming—and is banned from Broadcasting House, as I am. By contrast, claims that global warming will lead to the extinction of the human race are never challenged, even though the Government have confirmed that no peer-reviewed studies predict the end of the human race as a result of climate change. Alarmist claims about the supposedly catastrophic impact of climate change, which have no basis in the IPCC report, are never challenged. The IPCC says:
“For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers … Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change.”
Could you possibly reach that conclusion from listening to the BBC’s output on the subject?
On migration, the BBC invokes shortages of nurses and doctors as totemic reasons why we need a continued inflow of skilled workers, but it never reports—and it challenged and rebuked me when I said it—that, annually, we turn away over 20,000 British applicants for nursing courses in this country and the majority of the applicants for medical schools. I recently asked a politically literate audience who got most of their information from the BBC whether they were aware of this, and they were astonished to learn that it is true.
These three issues are immensely important to most people outside the metropolitan bubble. If the BBC fails to cover them in an informed and balanced way, if it believes its job is to convince and censor rather than to educate and inform, it will not secure the support that this Motion calls for.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Bragg on initiating this debate. He covers the waterfront so well that I do not need to go over his arguments, but I will focus on some of the challenges that the BBC faces.
I am a very eclectic listener and viewer. I am such an old fogey that I still get a printed copy of the Radio Times, which is a good thing to have because it shows the extent of the competition that the BBC faces. I am puzzled by some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, who said that most children do not own a TV. Well, no, they usually depend on their parents or grandparents, but they still watch the things that they want to. But I agree that one of the challenges the BBC faces is to capture the next generation of both viewers and listeners. Talking to young people about where they get their news from is quite illuminating. Many of them do not read newspapers or books but rely on social media channels such as Reddit. It is not that they do not watch the BBC at all, but this is a challenge that the BBC faces.
Then there is the argument of whether we really need the BBC to do things such as local radio. My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, is yes, we emphatically do, because it is one of the largest groups bringing on the next generation of journalists—its record on apprenticeships is second to none—and it serves a real audience. Do we need the BBC to provide comedies, et cetera? The answer is yes; look at the standard and quality of what it produces. I always think back to the amazing mission statement of Lord Reith, to inform, educate and entertain. That is part of the challenge to the BBC: can it still entertain an audience in the 21st century?
I am not ashamed to say that I enjoy watching “Strictly”—it is first-class entertainment. Interestingly, this year, it tackled two issues of diversity and inclusion. It included a young woman who is deaf, and a whole new group of people is now thinking about the value of sign language. Even more controversially, in a way —and even I was not sure—two gay men are dancing together; they have been an inspiration and are a contribution against homophobia. Who else would have done that in the middle of an entertainment programme? It is not perfect, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said—and maybe there are times when I agree with some of what he says—but I think there is diversity of opinion on the BBC.
I think also about children’s programmes—the Prime Minister is clearly obsessed with “Peppa Pig”. Of course, it is one in a long line of great BBC achievements. Those of us who are as old as some of us are can go back to the glories of “The Magic Roundabout” and, even further, to “Muffin the Mule”, which was quite an interesting proposition. Children’s television and radio are important things, and I think the BBC still has a wonderful role to play.
I will end on this, because I am conscious of the time. If I have any criticism, it is that I am worried about impartiality and integrity. I forgot to thank the right reverend Prelate for his maiden speech, which I found inspiring, in which he mentioned impartiality. I am glad to see, at long last, the recent decision of the BBC to withdraw from Stonewall—an organisation that I do not believe had a good influence and, in some ways, undermined its ability to demonstrate that it would hear a range of views. I am aware that this is a controversial issue, but I think it is important.
My concern about the future of the BBC is whether it is worth the funding and can still cut the ice in today’s broadcasting circumstances. I believe it can and I wish it well, but it has to think carefully about impartiality and integrity. I thank my noble friend Lord Bragg once again.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, in my brief time, I will talk about the educational work of the BBC. First, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for his thoughtful contribution. As a Liverpool resident of 40 years, I look forward to hearing other contributions from him.
As we have heard, the first director famously said that the BBC should inform, educate and entertain. As a young teacher, I remember using the BBC’s radio “Music and Movement” programmes for PE, dance and drama lessons, and the BBC’s school programmes were inspiring and invaluable. Who, for example, could ever forget Harry Armstrong? Who? Harry Armstrong brought the world of science alive for young children in the 1970s. The BBC has impressive world firsts in education. In 1924, it launched the first schools radio broadcast; in 1928, it launched the first adult education radio broadcast; in 1957, the BBC schools television service was launched; in 1971, the BBC and Open University partnership began; in 1981, BBC Micro launched, as part of the BBC’s computer literacy project; and, in 1998, BBC Bitesize, the flagship education website, was launched. In 2016, BBC micro:bit, a pocket-sized codable computer, was given free to every year 7 child.
Then Covid came along and lockdown occurred, including the shutdown of all our schools. The BBC sprang into action and, in literally a few weeks, launched Bitesize Daily to support learning for our schoolchildren and students during the Covid-19 pandemic. Bringing together top BBC talent with the best teachers across the UK, Bitesize Daily delivered a fun curriculum linked to lessons focusing on English and maths, as well as covering key curriculum subjects and student well-being. It reached an average of 2.7 million unique visitors every week, with a peak of 5.2 million unique visitors. Bitesize Daily TV shows reached over 6 million viewers on iPlayer and the red button; they explained learning in a fun and exciting way, and children and students loved them. Bitesize was used by 80% of secondary school pupils and 80% of GCSE students, who agreed that it made them feel more prepared for their exams. The Prime Minister called the initiative “fantastic”, and the Culture Secretary said:
“The BBC has helped the nation through some of the toughest moments of the last century, and for the next few weeks it will help our children learn whilst we stay home, protect the NHS and save lives.”
Lord Reith was general manager and managing director of the British Broadcasting Company. He resisted the US commercial model and campaigned for the BBC’s royal charter, and the British Broadcasting Corporation was established. Would education have flourished if he had chosen that American commercial model? I doubt it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, talked about things that the BBC should perhaps not do, and he mentioned local radio. He suggested that the commercial sector could do local radio, but we have local commercial radio stations and guess what? They might be commercially successful but they are no longer local—the programmes come from London and are broadcast to local communities. They have got rid of—sacked—local presenters and local production staff, and even closed down a local studio, I think in Brighton, so they do not seem very local to me. I was delighted to hear the right reverend Prelate talk about the importance of local radio to our community in Liverpool during Covid. Guess what? Radio Merseyside’s audience has increased dramatically.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, it is a thrill to take part in this debate, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, on calling it. I praise the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for his wonderful maiden speech, and I am glad to be the warm-up act for the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, who is one of the best discoveries that I have made since I joined your Lordships’ House.
I love debates about the BBC, mainly because we all suffer from “Strictly” syndrome—all our speeches descend very quickly into the programmes that we like or dislike on the BBC, and from that we extrapolate some grand stratagem about its future, but I want to concentrate a bit more on its structures because I am a critical friend of the BBC. In fact, the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, teed me up quite nicely, because as a Back-Bench MP I actually campaigned against the BBC’s education services and succeeded in closing some of them down. I did this because, as an Oxfordshire MP, I had a lot of publishing companies and education companies coming to me and saying, “We are private companies, and we employ hundreds of people in your constituency. We cannot compete against ‘free’”. That is why we now have the market-access test for the BBC’s new services, because sometimes the BBC, despite the much greater media world that we now live in, ends up stamping on the commercial sector.
I once found myself on the front page of the Sunday Times because I had mused to a journalist—thinking that I was in a seminar and not having an on-the-record drink—that perhaps Radio 1 could be privatised. The point is that we forget that Radio 1 was established in the 1960s to combat pirate radio. We now have Radio 1, Radio 2 and 6 Music, all existing in a highly competitive and commercial popular music environment. It is legitimate to ask these kinds of questions. I always start from the premise that it is important to ask these questions, just as it is important to ask the question about whether Channel 4 should be privatised. I do not know what the right answer is, but we should not shy away from these kinds of questions.
I was the Minister who froze the licence fee when we came into government in 2010. Again, I have always wondered—it sounds like a dinner party one-liner; it is a dinner party one-liner—whether it would be interesting to have a director-general who came into office saying, “My ambition over the next five years is to cut the licence fee by 10% without having to have a fight with the Government.” These are the sorts of questions that I feel we should be asking about the BBC. I share the sentiment of this debate, which is that the BBC is a national treasure that we should support, but we should also ask critical questions of it.
There are three or four points that I want to make as I wrap up. The first is that the BBC never thinks enough about how it can support the wider commercial sector. For example, commercial radio companies complain to me that they do not want to go on BBC Sounds, because it is called “BBC Sounds”. The BBC has created an amazing radio digital platform that the commercial sector cannot work with. If one talks to the commercial sector about how easy it is to work with the BBC, they all say that it is impossible; similarly with the iPlayer. I would love to have the BBC see as one of its aims support for the wider commercial sector.
The absolutely core reason why we should support the BBC is precisely because of what we talk about when we mention companies such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney. The clue, of course, is in their names. These are huge, global, US companies. We need to find a way to preserve—and I make no apology for saying this—UK content for UK audiences, and to have a quality anchor for our broadcasting landscape.
The BBC must support market failure, and this where I part company with my noble friend Lord Hannan’s brilliant speech. BBC local radio is a vital service that we do not talk enough about. I do not think that anyone else apart from the BBC can really provide the local radio that I still believe is vital.
Finally, the BBC should be there—in a complicated media world that is now rife with disinformation—as a trusted source of news. That has never been more important than it is today. Moreover, the BBC should—and I welcome the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay—do the kinds of things that are difficult to do: really push in the area of diversity and people from diverse backgrounds, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young, when he, like all of us, succumbed to “Strictly” syndrome.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, it is indeed a pleasure to be part of this debate, brought forward by my noble friend Lord Bragg. I have had the honour, twice on television and once on radio, to be part of programmes that he has put out, and it was a learning experience in its own right. It is almost as much a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, who has made my task infinitely more difficult by his mention of me, gracious as it was, a moment ago. It was also a pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool—I must call him my noble friend or noble colleague—as he gave us an indication of what we should expect from him in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and I are both members of the Select Committee on Communications and Digital. Just last week the committee interrogated a Government Minister on the subject of online safety. I asked the Minister how the fine principles he was adumbrating might command respect and solidarity in the international community. We were, after all, discussing the worldwide web. The Minister informed us that he had recently attended conferences in various countries beyond our shores. He wanted to impress upon the committee the respect and trust in which we were held by countries abroad. They trust us, he said, and they know that we will keep our word and that we have integrity; they revere our culture. I am sure that we all wish that were true. Indeed, I venture to suggest, as others have in this debate, that if it is true, it owes more to the BBC than to Her Majesty’s Government—especially, perhaps, the present one.
I will limit my brief moment on the stage to the BBC’s radio output. For over 30 years, in a cameo career, I have worked on Radio 4, Radio 2, Radio Wales, the World Service and regional stations of the BBC. For a number of years, in faraway Haiti, run as it was by a dictator, our understanding of what was happening—really happening—in the world at large was provided by the BBC. I know that is as true now as it was then. Indeed, the BBC dominates the radio waves, with a 51% share of total audiences.
In countries where there is political turbulence, threats to the lives of public figures, one natural disaster after another and, nowadays, the onward and outward march of the pandemic, it is likely that the only proper perspective on a maelstrom of events will come to beleaguered and confused people—even with the competing demand for public attention by television and social media—through the informed work of our beloved BBC radio. I know that, in distant and remote places, in underdeveloped and developing countries, radio is available where television is not. Ask not, then, in these troubled post-Brexit times, who can best help to forge the frequently expressed desire for a nation that bestrides the ocean like a colossus. In pole position, we just have to recognise the BBC: Auntie, global Britain hath need of thee.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his excellent maiden speech, and the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, on securing this debate, his incredibly forensic speech and his long and distinguished broadcasting career. As he said, the BBC is probably the best and most trusted broadcaster in the world, attracting international admiration. In an era of fake news, as we have heard, it is more important than ever that there are trusted, impartial news sources such as the BBC on which we can rely. But it is not just for news alone, as we heard. The BBC has an unparalleled range of services, from its education offering to its pivotal support for the creative industries. It is, of course, one of the greatest sources of British soft power throughout the world.
Even the BBC’s rivals share this view. Senior figures at Netflix, for example, talk of the BBC’s impact
“in building the profile of the UK creatively”
and their support for
“the long-term sustainability of the BBC”.
Despite significant growth in competition, the BBC continues to hold its own. More people use the BBC than any other media brand. Even when funding restrictions limit what the BBC can screen, it is still the broadcaster of choice. Broadcasting just 2% of sport on TV, it delivers around 40% of TV sports viewing.
So, on these Benches, while acknowledging, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said, that the BBC should regularly be challenged, we support a strong, well-funded and independent BBC and will oppose attempts to undermine this by seeking to reduce its funding or remit. Yet, sadly, decisions by the Conservative Government have meant the BBC having to take on more obligations with less income: a 31% cut over the past 10 years with a frozen licence fee, having to fund free licences for the over-75s—a social policy which should be funded by the Government—and additional obligations in relation to the World Service, BBC Monitoring, S4C and even broadband rollout.
Perhaps we should not be surprised. After all, it was the Prime Minister’s former advisor Dominic Cummings who called for the
“end of the BBC in its current form”,
advising right-wingers to work towards undermining the credibility of the BBC because it is the “mortal enemy” of the Conservative Party. There have been numerous examples more recently of that undermining. Following evidence that the decriminalisation of licence fee non-payment would cost the BBC dearly, rather than scrap their plans, the Government have said they will keep the matter under review, adding to what the NAO has called the “uncertainty” about the BBC’s financial future. A broadcasting Minister has argued that it will soon be possible to introduce subscription services as an element of funding for the BBC—a move that would undermine the crucial universality of the BBC, at a time when Ofcom has said that
“universality will still be necessary to deliver the benefits of public service broadcasting in future.”
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that he recalls that the BBC was deliberately set up to disrupt the market because the market cannot and will not deliver this universality. We have had Theresa May’s former communications chief trying to block an appointment to the post of BBC News editor and the current Prime Minister’s attempt to the install former Daily Telegraph editor, Charles Moore, as BBC chairman. More recently we saw the Prime Minister desperately seeking, even trying to bend the rules, to appoint ex-Daily Mail editor, Paul Dacre, as the next chair of Ofcom, the BBC’s regulator, despite his well-known animosity towards the BBC and having earlier been judged by the interview panel as “not appointable”. He could hardly have been a neutral referee on BBC regulation. To cap it all, we have a new Secretary of State who has been so unclear about the sustainability of the BBC that she is not even sure if it will exist in 10 years’ time. The time has come for the Government to cease its attempts to “thwack” the BBC and, as the Motion proposes, start giving it greater support.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, on having obtained this debate. I declare an interest, having been a BBC producer for 25 years. I am now a freelance producer working for United Kingdom and United States channels.
I support noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the value of the BBC to this country, but my fear right now is the big cuts taking place in staff in BBC news and current affairs. In BBC studios there are cuts to drama, arts and history, all of which will diminish the broadcasting environment in this country and impoverish viewers.
This afternoon I want to concentrate my comments on one particular area. After all, this debate is about the BBC’s value to a wider global audience. It is a service which is very close to my heart: the BBC Russian service, which faces constant threat of censorship. Every Friday night, the Justice Ministry in Moscow issues a list of journalists and organisations which are designated as foreign agents. From that moment, the designated journalist has to put a disclaimer, “foreign agent”, on all their posts, whether they are news items or on their child’s school’s social media page. Failure to do so three times could earn a prison sentence of up to five years. Not surprisingly, as a result there is great fear among journalists, people refuse to give interviews to them, and their work is tainted.
Independent Russian media outlets such TV Rain and Echo Moskvy have been designated foreign agents. Recently the BBC journalist Andrei Zakharov went on the list. Imagine the pressure on the 144 journalists of the BBC Russian service, many of them working in country, in that environment. Since I first worked in the USSR in 1989, I have known the importance of the Russian service as an independent voice and a projector of British values. At that time, I worked with a journalist from the Russian service who had been allowed to visit the country for the first time in 35 years. Wherever we went, she was greeted as a conquering heroine for keeping the voice of freedom alive through the long years of communism. Since the arrest in January this year of opposition leader Alexei Navalny, repression against independent and opposition voices in Russia has been dramatically ramped up, while this week the head of MI6 warned that Russia poses “an acute threat” to this country.
The BBC Russian service is now more important than at any time since the fall of the Soviet Union, reaching 5 million Russian users weekly and seeing a huge rise in young people engaging via social media. In a country where any criticism of the regime or support for the opposition is repressed and rarely heard in the mainstream media, this service has run brave stories. It published an important investigation into Russian mercenaries suspected of war crimes while being paid to fight in Libya, and connected them back to Yevgeny Prigozhin, the man they call “Putin’s chef” because of his ability to cook up murky deals for the regime.
Unlike many other outlets, the BBC Russian service has a network of journalists across the country whose reports take the real temperature of what is happening in the country. In the Russian Far East, they covered the firing of a mayor because he dared to be independent from the regime and allowed the voices of his supporters to be heard. In the small town of Dimitrovgrad, the BBC Russian service one was one of the few that reported on an Orthodox priest who was fired and then vilified for saying of the opposition leader Navalny, “I used to criticise him, but now I want to shake his hand”. Last week, when 52 miners were killed in a mining explosion in Siberia, the BBC was one of the few media outlets which carried the voices of the desperate, bereaved families. They said the miners knew the management was ignoring safety protocols and deactivating the methane gas monitors, but poverty and lack of opportunity forced them to continue working in the mine.
The BBC Russian service costs £5.9 million a year, 75% of which is paid from the licence fee. I hope that the Government decide on an inflation-linked settlement. I have no doubt that failure to do so will adversely affect the BBC World Service and its language services. I also hope that the FCDO will very soon confirm its continuing commitment to the additional funding of these services, as laid out in the October spending review but as yet not confirmed beyond March 2022.
I urge the Minister to protect the BBC and ensure that it flourishes. Domestically it is important as a trusted source of news, and internationally, especially in repressive regimes such as Russia’s, it is a lifeline for independent thought and the projection of British values. A strong BBC will maintain our standing in the world, which the Prime Minister says is a central part of this Government’s global Britain policy.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the BBC’s value as a beacon of excellence has always rested on the impartiality of its news output, but internationally and certainly domestically, that impartiality is under strain. Ofcom tells us that audiences consistently rate the BBC less favourably than other channels for impartiality, and complaints have trebled over four years. Even the BBC itself has now initiated new impartiality training, as it is worried that its staff do not understand it, which is worrying. Indeed, the BBC head of news, Fran Unsworth, recently had to explain to one staff team that they would have to hear and see ideas and people that they did not personally like. That such “journalism 101” lessons were needed should concern us all.
I will make some remarks as a critical friend—much as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, commented—and as a contributor, particularly to Radio 4, and a listener for decades. As an educator, I regularly introduced teenagers to the archive of the “In Our Time” programme of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg—that is why I am rather nervous speaking in front of him. By the way, I introduced those programmes against advice from other people at the BBC, who told me that their discussions with academics were a bit too highbrow for teenagers and would alienate urban youth—that was a kind of soft bigotry of low expectations that assumes that only Stormzy and “RuPaul’s Drag Race” will capture young hearts and minds.
But, at the risk of being slightly at odds with the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, I think that criticising the BBC is actually a duty. I appreciate that any criticism of the BBC in 2021 can easily be dismissed as, variously, a Daily Mail plot, a Tory coup against the licence fee and a Rupert Murdoch-driven attempt at stirring up the culture wars—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord agrees with me; how brilliant. But, if the BBC is to be of value in the UK, we—its supporters—need to stop being defensive and accept that all grievances are not whipped up by devious political ideologues but arise from perfectly legitimate concerns from the public about impartiality.
Traditionally, a way of judging impartiality was the pride with which impartial broadcasters could boast that no one would know how they voted—their opinions were kept under wraps. But, today, the sense of compromised impartiality is the perception of groupthink at the BBC—not from party politics but from the embrace of values assumed to be incontestable but actually politically partisan and ideologically contentious, such as the BBC’s internalisation of identity politics.
Recently, the BBC’s director of creative diversity, earning a cool £250,000 a year, introduced an allyship training scheme and stated on the BBC website:
“build back better to ensure diversity and inclusion is baked into the ‘new normal’ once the crisis has passed.”
I emphasise the phrases “baked in” and “new normal”. Imagine, then, trying to be staff member in that BBC department who wanted to challenge its decision to spend £100 million on a drive for diversity and inclusion in response to the Black Lives Matter protest. Such an approach does not include but excludes those who disagree—diversity is never diversity of opinion. Try also being a gender-critical feminist working at the BBC—there are many, but they know to keep schtum. I even know people who work at the BBC who voted to leave the European Union, but they could not come out and remain secret Brexiteers to this day. That is how groupthink works: not everyone agrees, but everyone knows the narrative that you are expected to follow.
The embrace of such orthodoxies is rarely spotted as a threat to the impartiality of BBC output, but it is a new and very present danger. Why did no one at the BBC notice the danger to editorial independence when the corporation signed up to a partisan lobbying NGO such as Stonewall? This was so well documented and eventually revealed, despite pressure to drop it, by the Stephen Nolan podcast series—an example of BBC investigative journalism at its finest.
Yet, even now, BBC senior management has announced that it is working with another external organisation—Involve—on trans-inclusive policies, although Maya Forstater, co-founder of Sex Matters, has warned that it might be
“Stonewall in all but name”.
Kate Harris from the LGB Alliance has cautioned:
“For the sake of the BBC, its reputation and its audience, it must be open about the exact nature of the relationship and how it will safeguard its editorial independence.”
On another issue, do not alarm bells sound when we see a corporate logo for Albert pasted at the end of current affairs programmes, such as “Newsnight”? I was intrigued and looked it up, and I found out that the BBC has signed up to an initiative in which media organisations pledge to use their content to help audiences tackle climate change and inform sustainable choices. Tim Davie is quoted on Albert’s website, saying:
“At the BBC we will continue to tell the stories that matter ... or help audiences consider greener choices through our best loved shows like EastEnders”.
Is it any wonder that sections of the public will feel patronised, denied choice, lectured and nudged to embrace one true political outlook? That is not impartiality in my book.
To conclude: like the right reverend Prelate, who I welcome here and who gave an excellent, original and thoughtful contribution to today’s debate, I worry about some of the toxic trends in the public square. However, I worry that it is identity politics that is so tearing apart the public square and that it is the groupthink approach to fashionable political causes that threatens diversity of opinion. I hope the BBC will stop succumbing to both.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the whole House owes a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Bragg for securing today’s debate, whatever one’s views of the BBC are. Having listened to my noble friend on the radio and seen him on television for so many years, I find it a bit hard to believe that I am listening to him in person. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech, which was very thoughtful and caring. As someone who made a maiden speech only six weeks ago today, I know how relieved he feels— I trust—at the moment.
My purpose in briefly intervening today is to draw attention to the BBC’s role during the pandemic, which I regard as exemplary, in many ways—it is something that we should not forget. When we look back, a year and a half or more, to when the pandemic was unfolding, we remember that an awful lot of us—all of us, I would imagine—did not know what was to follow. It was a time of great uncertainty, and there is a slight hint of that today, with the new variant. But the fact is that there was a great need for trusted information.
I pay tribute to the BBC for, first, the production of factual information: the graphs showing the numbers of infections, hospitalisations and deaths, which became a daily or weekly feature of life. Having worked with many scientific organisations, I can tell the House that all of them relied on the accuracy of the statistics produced by the BBC.
Secondly, the BBC held and invented or created a whole lot of new Q&A programmes because millions of members of the public heard the news but also wanted the opportunity to phone in and ask questions about the situation and how it might affect them. The BBC was not the only broadcaster to do this, but it did this very well. Of course, it also carried the press conferences, which brought people together, in a way—they were must-see viewing to keep us in touch with what was happening.
I bring to the attention of the House some of the statistics available. For example, at the beginning of the pandemic, audiences for “News at Six” were the highest that they had been for nearly 20 years. There was a great surge of desire to tune into the BBC to find out what was happening. On the days that the lockdowns were introduced—23 March and 31 October 2020—it is estimated that 84% of adults in the UK came to the BBC in a single day. This statistic has perhaps already been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Jay: 45% of people name the BBC as their number one source of information and news on Covid-19.
The right reverend Prelate talked about a fragmented public square, if I remember the phrase correctly. It is true: the noble Lords opposite have both spoken about the range of providers that exist in the modern world. But there are times when people want to come together. Of course, like other noble Lords, I remember the days, years and years ago, when the viewing figures for Morecambe and Wise at Christmas were astronomic—because there was no alternative, really, and they were very popular. But, at a time of crisis, as in the pandemic, the BBC’s role has been very great indeed.
Internationally, I understand that some of the figures here are just as important to reflect upon. The international channels brought the news about the pandemic in 40 languages around the world. Digital audiences for the BBC World Service surged to over 208 million people a week at the beginning of the pandemic.
Noble Lords perhaps know these figures, but they bear on one of the themes of this debate, especially in relation to the pandemic: trust. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey referred to this, and it is very important. We live in a time when there is an anti-science movement in this country, which you see in different ways—I ask those who may have been in the Chamber six weeks ago today, when I referred to this, to forgive me—and the BBC has played a very commendable part in countering that, to the benefit of us all.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I part company, slightly and even-handedly, with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, over the point about bias. When asked to name the source that they trusted the most, news consumers cited the BBC most often: 49% did, which is far ahead of its nearest rival. Sky News and ITV were both on 7% and the Guardian was on 4%, while all other sources combined totalled 23%. If any noble Lord wishes to challenge that, please do so.
However, it is a remarkable fact—this, I suspect, is what irks the Government—that the “what the papers say” consensus, which is faithfully reported every day at 8.10 am on Radio 4, does not reflect the news provider that people trust most, which is the BBC. With regard to the consensus between the Mail, Express, Telegraph and so on, the people out there do not instinctively trust such tabloids; they instinctively trust the BBC. Let us get that out of the way.
I will make a couple of personal points. First, I join noble Lords who have congratulated the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I greatly admired his speech, which was what it says on the tin: calm, reflective and analytical. I hope that we will hear a lot more from him.
Secondly, I add my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Bragg. If, at 9 pm or 9.30 pm—I forget which—on a Thursday I fancied hearing a bit more about Aeschylus, or the ideas currently coming out of the community of astronomers, I could get it straight from my noble friend. I said to him once, “You know all this stuff backwards, don’t you?” He replied, “No, no, I forget it all one minute after I’ve finished”. I do not believe that, but we will all have to make our minds up about it. His is a remarkable arrangement, and it is quintessentially BBC.
We have to recognise that there is a difficulty for the commercial market in not having a slight increase in the financial commitment to the BBC. A noble Lord opposite— I think the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—asked only a few minutes ago why, since we had surely got past the stage of running a state motor car company, we should run a state broadcaster. The noble Lord will correct me if I have misquoted him. I query the phrase “state broadcaster”. There is no doubt what that has come to mean: Radio Moscow, Peking radio or whatever. To say that we should criticise the BBC for “allowing” Nick Robinson to say something that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, clearly strongly disagrees with or believes to be untrue is wrong; it is, surely, the way in which the BBC has to operate.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to participate in this debate, which was so ably opened by my noble friend Lord Bragg. He has been a steadfast friend of mine since I joined this House, as a fellow Cumbrian. I have the privilege of representing his home town, Wigton, on Cumbria County Council, and when I go canvassing people say to me, “You’re Melvyn’s friend, aren’t you?” It gets me lots of votes. What he said was a very moving testament to the work of the BBC and a reason why we should support it. I add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool on his very measured and well-argued maiden speech. I also confess to an interest, in that my wife was at one time deputy director-general of the BBC.
My own view of the BBC is that it does what it says on the tin: it informs, educates and entertains. I have held that view of it since my childhood. The Home Service news was the basis for all our family discussions of politics when I was growing up in my Carlisle home, and BBC News remains the essential anchor of political debate in this country. Comment is forthright, yes, but not, in my opinion, biased.
However, the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, about representing the views of the metropolitan elite has to be taken seriously. I qualify that statement in two ways. First, my wife was always telling me that the BBC was never overrun by leftists: many of the senior ranks of broadcasters supported the Conservatives. Secondly, as people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, have to remember, it is not just holders of right-wing opinions who feel underrepresented. The hard left hates the BBC because it sees it as the representative of what they call the “mainstream media”. If you want better balance you will have to look in that direction too.
The BBC is wonderful. No organisation in Britain combines local depth and international reach. I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, about local radio. I recognise the very important role played in Cumbria by Radio Cumbria in emergencies such as floods. The World Service also goes from strength to strength, despite the dangers it faces from brutal civil wars and autocratic regimes that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, described, threaten the independence of its journalists.
The BBC is not perfect; it has to change and competition is good for it. But I believe it is our job as politicians to support the BBC in this essential process of adjusting to change. Our job is not to starve it of resources by freezing the licence fee, or to fiddle with it, as the coalition Government did, or to impose on it the duty to pay for licences for the over-75s. We must not try to weaken the cutting edge of BBC journalism either. I think the BBC represents what is best of Britain, and I honestly believe that those people who are enemies of the BBC are not patriotically standing up for one of the things that is best for our country.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I did not expect to have to stand here and take on a patriotic duty, but I will, to an extent. All of us are saying nice things about the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, and so I will pass on one anecdote. I was taking my sister round here—she now lives in the United States—and the thing she always remembers about the trip is not the building, not the great hall, not the nice tea and not my wonderful anecdotes, but the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said hello and waved to me as we went down a corridor. Clearly, his reach goes far beyond the architecture of this building.
When I think of the BBC, I think of an establishment, and of something that has touched all our lives. I also think of it as something that does things others cannot. My noble friend has pointed to the huge work that was done to support our education system during the height of the Covid pandemic—we hope it is on the wane now. Nobody other than a state broadcaster with a degree of freedom could have done that; nobody else could have taken that on and done that work.
For those on the Conservative Benches who are always telling me that the BBC is biased, I have an answer that will stop the BBC looking at you: be out of power for longer periods of time. Come on—the BBC is supposed to be an independent, inquisitive organisation, telling us the news. If you are making the decisions, you are the guys getting looked at. If you do not like it, other people are prepared—quite selflessly—to step into the role. That is the simple answer: if you are in power, you are going to get looked at.
I turn to one other small area in which the BBC has been something of a leader: the growth of elite-level women’s sport. When you arrive in the sporting world, you are covered by the BBC at the right times. The rise of women’s football and women’s rugby, in both codes, has been important and has been taken seriously. It gets coverage, and that has been led by the BBC. If you are out there taking part in sport that is being covered by the main broadcaster, you have arrived and are something to be commented upon. The BBC has found time to fit women’s sport into its schedule and not just into a small slot at the back. Every other broadcaster has for a long time said, “Oh, great, let’s film this nice little girls’ game.” No, this is serious sport, played seriously, at the right time. When your sport is shown on a free-to-air channel such as the BBC, you have arrived. The BBC might have been able to do more, but I think it has done the most. It has also been the most influential when it does this. When something is covered by the BBC, you have arrived.
I would like the Minister to tell me who else could conceivably do that. Who else could reach everybody—not just those who are looking for the coverage but those who discover it is there? I cannot see anybody else who can do it. If you pay for an exclusive service, that keeps it exclusive and you have to pay to get the thing you want. Such a service might advertise something else, but will something that competes with it change your mind and make you move away? Not really. Can the Minister give us some assurance that the Government will make sure that it is a state broadcaster that takes on the public awareness role of showing that elite-level sport is for everybody, or at least for much bigger groups? Elite-level sport inspires people to take up sport; it makes it okay to take it up and encourages people that it is the right way forward. We should be using the BBC to encourage the nations to get fitter in a way that they choose, and in a way that they can take up at their own expense, in their own time, and so saving the NHS money. Surely it is not too much to indulge a broadcaster that will occasionally annoy the Government of the day. Please give the BBC that support.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for this extremely welcome and timely debate, and incidentally for providing an occasion for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool to give such a thought-provoking maiden speech.
I will focus on the World Service and the foreign language channels, about which I have more knowledge and experience than its domestic output. That experience was most vividly brought to life during the years when I was Britain’s Permanent Representative to the UN between 1990 and 1995. It was during that pretty tumultuous period that I came to appreciate what an extraordinary asset the BBC World Service was to Britain’s soft power, perhaps summed up best by President Mikhail Gorbachev’s remark at the time of the coup against him in 1991 that it was the BBC that had kept him in touch with what was actually happening in Moscow while he was cut off in the Crimea, under arrest.
Why is it an asset? Not because it broadcasts pro-British propaganda—it does not do that—but because it provides a continuous flow of professional, evidence-based reporting and commentary. I believe that that remains the case; all the more so now, when the airwaves are full of the fake news and disinformation which has proliferated in recent years and shows no sign of abating. The facts about the BBC’s outreach speak for themselves: a worldwide audience of 456 million; an audience of 364 million for the World Service, up by 42% between 2016 and 2020; 43 language services. Can the benefit of that in terms of soft power be quantified precisely? I doubt that very much. But is it reality, in terms of influence? Undoubtedly, I would say.
That, in my view, is why it was a major error when the Cameron Government forced the BBC to finance its overseas work from the licence fee. This set up a disruptive tension within the BBC over the allocation of resources between its domestic and overseas work, which did not occur when the latter was financed directly by the Government. What on earth is the rationale for the poorest in society to pay exactly the same as the richest when it comes to financing that oversees output? I suggest that the sooner the old system is reinstated, the better, and I hope the Minister will address this point when he winds up the debate.
I do not wish to conclude these remarks without mentioning the cruel and disgraceful harassment of the journalists who work for the BBC’s Persian service, and their families, by the regime in Tehran. It may not be much solace to those affected by this harassment but, in a way, if you think about it, it is a tribute to the role they play in bringing to the people of Iran proper, facts-based, professional reporting, something which authoritarian regimes invariably fear and resent. The same is true in the case of Russia and China. We should, I believe, be exceedingly grateful to the BBC for what it does to make this possible.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I join the chorus not only of the Cumbrians here but of the whole House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, on securing this debate at a time when, as we all can hear, there is a degree of controversy surrounding certain aspects of the BBC and its activities. I must declare at the start that I am a supporter, albeit a critical friend and, I trust, a candid one. I also recognise that we live in a fallen world, where the best aspirations are not always achieved but must never be forgotten.
I begin from the perspective shared by a number of speakers in the debate that the BBC has become an institution which helps define this country and its own brand of distinctiveness—Britishness. It is very important to very many people in all kinds of ways, but not to everyone, and it is, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, probably the greatest instrument of soft power and the promotion of British views and voice that we can hope for.
When, about 100 years ago, the media world—not that it was called that then—went through a revolution with the development of radio and then television, it was recognised that the fourth estate, which is of course an important part of the wider constitution, was changing. The BBC in its current form evolved from that, with its central attributes—and people may accuse me of being a semantic pedant—of being a national broadcaster, not a state or government broadcaster, which has public funding but, at the same time, is independently managed under the rule of law. This includes the rule of impartiality, which, as we all know, is a pretty slippery concept in certain contexts. It is also accountable both to Parliament and to the public. From that British concept, public service broadcasting evolved.
These attributes do not necessarily work smoothly but they do basically work. That is important. Now it seems to me that it is the central datum point around which the rest of the media world in this country relates. It is a touchstone against which other things are judged; some, as we have heard, are better and some less so. I believe that the availability of accurate information is at the core of democracy and voters need to be sure of a modicum of correctness, truth and true understanding properly to play their role, not least because decisions we all take as voters can have as big an impact on our neighbours as on ourselves. The BBC in particular, and public service broadcasting more generally, plays an important part in this. Like the National Health Service, it is always there, even if you do not use it. Furthermore, clearly the public must have confidence—it must be trusted and be impartial. One of the crucial aspects of this in the round, it seems to me, is that the media must never take the Government’s shilling as respects news and current affairs.
I now briefly turn to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, one of its latest initiatives in this context. For more than a decade I chaired a regional media group, principally newspapers, which were very important in the dissemination of local news and information and, as such, performed an important civic function. The well-understood collapse in the classified advertising market led to a collapse in our revenues, which led to fewer journalists which led to less local news, which in turn was a civic failure, I believe. In response to that, the Local Democracy Reporting Service provides money for journalists employed by local newspapers with financial support from the BBC. It then makes their stories more generally available. It is rather like a mini Press Association. The local press still matters in this country and this is an important initiative. I was initially sceptical about it but I am very happy to eat my words and say that it has been a very good example of how the Government and the BBC have responded to collateral damage from the digital revolution. To underline my point, it was only last week that I was metaphorically doorstepped by one of its reporters.
There is a lot of discussion, debate and rumour about where the BBC goes from here. What it seems to me must not happen is that the Government may feel tempted to eye up the BBC rather as Henry VIII eyed up the monasteries. It should remain at the heart of public service broadcasting and at the heart of this country’s media landscape. It is not a cash cow and should be run by Lord Reith rather than Lord Haw-Haw.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bragg, who has done us a real favour by introducing this debate. I also add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. He lit a candle in his speech and, on the seventh night of Hanukkah, I am all in favour of more candles being lit.
We have a limited number of exceptional implements in our soft diplomacy toolbox. My noble friend Lady Jay and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, a few moments ago, made essentially this point. We look for things that are practical and that speak to our values. They are easy to identify, partly because there are not that many of them—the Chevening Commonwealth Marshall Scholarships, Wilton Park, the British Council and, rightly, the BBC World Service, and I share all the anxieties expressed a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, about its funding.
The independence and quality of the BBC World Service is based on a broad judgment that people around the world have of the BBC itself. It fulfils many functions as an institution, as the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said in his opening comments, but I want to focus on its independence as a news broadcaster, as an investigative powerhouse and as an entity that is not directed by the UK Government and is globally and internationally understood to have that level of independence.
I get the point that it is sometimes muddled on matters of balance. I think it has been in its climate coverage, for example, but occasional muddles are massively outweighed by the huge quality and independence. In short, the output is based on the BBC’s own processes, not on government processes or anything else. That characterisation of the BBC is, of course, not widely accepted everywhere in the world. The World Service was blocked by China over the years that I was in the Foreign Office. Diplomatic discussions with China were interesting. It alleged that we would not allow China to broadcast unimpeded to us. My view was, “Bring it on. Broadcast absolutely anything you want and let us broadcast to you”. I have no anxiety whatever about the standing of the United Kingdom in that kind of debate.
I want to quickly draw attention to one other area where the FCO, as it was in those days, advised the World Service. It was only a matter of advice, which was to refocus at that time—2005—from east and central European outlets to Farsi TV and radio output. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, it was argued, had become media-rich and diverse in their own rights; exactly the opposite was true in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 in Iran. As we have learned graphically from Anne Applebaum’s remarkable book on the death of democracy, Poland and Hungary have joined countries such as Belarus as thorough dystopias. Their media have lost any distinction between their Government’s view of the truth or the fictions useful to those regimes.
I ask the Minister: will Her Majesty’s Government advise, and it will be only advice, the World Service to focus again—perhaps through enhanced shortwave broadcasting but there are, I think, a number of methods—on the central and eastern European states that I have mentioned? This is not a time for financial cuts in reaching out to broadcast to those countries. We need to understand the threat of dystopian regimes in our own near neighbourhood and recognise the extent to which destabilisation in central and eastern Europe threatens our security absolutely and directly in this country. We are seeing the reinvention in a virulent form of nationalism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism in those countries and the World Service is probably one of the best antidotes that we have available.
The qualities of the BBC may be among our best, most honest, best proven, most well-tested attributes in the circumstances I have described. As my noble friend Lord Bragg said in introducing the debate, unprejudiced public service is what the BBC provides us with. It is not designed to be an implement of foreign policy but its impact abroad is very significant, and possibly as significant as any impact it has in our domestic circumstances.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for bringing this timely debate to the House. I note particularly his comments in relation to the cuts to the BBC World Service. Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I was rejected by the BBC for its 1982 graduate training scheme. In spite of that, I would like to focus briefly on the subject of wider global audiences, as I believe that it is here that the greatest opportunity lies for the BBC, while raising fundamental questions about the business model of a public service broadcaster. I speak from my own experience as both a journalist and a publisher, having worked as a foreign correspondent in Latin America and the Middle East and, more recently, in setting up and running an online information provider underpinned by paid subscriptions.
In my experience, the BBC’s brand as a trusted, impartial broadcaster is considerably stronger outside the UK than within it. I apply this statement to almost all regions of the world, with the possible exception of Europe. As my noble friends have highlighted, the BBC brand is especially valued in emerging markets that do not benefit from their own world-class impartial broadcasters. I have witnessed this in countries such as Mexico, Brazil, the UAE, Vietnam and Malaysia, to name a few. The receptive audiences in all these markets are not limited to expatriates but include growing sections of national populations that are hungry for objective information on the world around them.
With this in mind, it is no surprise to me that the BBC achieved its highest ever global audience in 2020: an impressive 486 million people per week, as we have heard. That has been achieved in spite of an increasingly crowded market, with streaming services joined by fast-developing social media platforms, which, rather disturbingly, are becoming the first—and, in many cases, the only—source of news for the under-30s. Dig deeper into the data and we can see that BBC News, including of course the World Service, accounts for 438 million of that reach—some 90% of the BBC’s global audience.
As we have heard, this global reach represents an invaluable asset in terms of the UK’s soft power and influence, all the more so as we embark on becoming global Britain. It is hugely helpful to government relations but also, although this is perhaps less known, to UK multinationals and SME exporters, as I discovered in my days as a publisher. Yet this international reach does not translate into significant income. Licence fees account for £3.75 billion of the BBC’s £4 billion in income and reportedly only £200 million in net income is derived from the BBC’s global content.
The BBC does provide value, especially to the wider overseas audience, but with its current restrictions as state broadcaster, it is unable to commercially harness this huge global opportunity. I am arguing not for privatisation but for changes to the business model, particularly in the areas of tiered subscriptions and content licensing for overseas markets.
For the consumer here, the current licence fee of £157 per household is terrific value for money, as the real subscription value of BBC content is probably nearer £400 per annum, as highlighted in the BBC Value for Audiences report. However, the BBC should not remain so reliant on licence fees when BBC News, which I believe merits increased investment rather than cuts, has the potential to generate billions in income and, in time, contribute the greatest share of revenue to the corporation. That could and should be done, without resorting to advertising and sponsorship, which, in my view, would threaten the very thing the BBC is most valued for outside these shores: trusted information.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for securing this debate and introducing it so beautifully, even if, when I hear his mellifluous tones, I cannot help thinking we are about to venture off into the life of the astronomer Caroline Herschel or, as in a recent favourite episode of “In Our Time”, the evolution of crocodiles.
The noble Lord set out very clearly two of the gigantic threats faced by the BBC, which, although many might like to grumble about this piece of output or that, is, as an institution, a public service hugely valued by the public. Apparently, if you read the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, it is also valued by the Government for its place in international soft power, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, referred.
The first threat is the squeezing of funding. As the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said, it seems that the Government are bent on making the BBC weaker. The second threat is what the noble Lord again so clearly explained as the “jumbo bombers coming across the Atlantic”. The great parasite Amazon, Netflix and other global monoliths are clearly something we need an institution to stand against.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, outlined some of the many ways in which the BBC has been cut away at. Unlike him, I am not going to celebrate the loss of free educational resources; nor, I suggest, should the Government, given their often-avowed attachment to lifelong learning.
Like others, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, spoke about our “broadcasting landscape”. The word “ecosystem” has also been used. The BBC is still a big part of that landscape, but is not, as some with certain ideological attachments often like to claim, a part that squeezes out the small, new and innovative. Rather, the BBC is a crucial part of nurturing talent and innovation from such sources.
The BBC is a bulwark. Think of it perhaps as a giant sequoia tree that stands against the threat of not many but a few giants; namely, a handful of multimedia tycoons and giant multinational companies—you might think of them as wildfire and raging flood, as they are certainly equally destructive. As the Media Reform Coalition, working in co-operation with the Center for Media, Data and Society, again highlights in its 2021 report on media ownership, concentration is endemic. Three firms control 90% of the national media newspaper market, up from 83% in 2019—a seven percentage point increase. Three local publishers each control one-fifth of the local press market. Facebook controls three of the top five social media services used to access online news. Two companies own 70% of the 279 local commercial radio stations—a 20% increase since 2018. That is not a healthy ecosystem. If the size of the BBC is reduced, the fat cats of the oligopoly only get fatter.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, on something: the licence fee is a poll tax and should be replaced by a hypothecated share of progressive income tax—far more progressive than it is now—with a level of funding at least restored to 2010 levels in real terms. Changing technological demands will require that.
I also agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about the importance of local channels and stations at the BBC and—in another failure of regulation, of which we see so many—the total failure of regulators to ensure that what are supposed to be local commercial radio stations actually serve those audiences. I should perhaps declare that, a long time ago and in another country, I spent some time working as a producer on a local ABC radio station. That feeds my great respect for the local teams that continue to produce brilliant local content for the BBC under extremely straitened funding conditions.
I think of a young woman who covered the roles of reporter, camerawoman, soundwoman and social media outputter when she interviewed me in North Yorkshire. She was so slick, she was practically juggling the multiple digital tools of those various trades as she deployed them in the hasty 10 minutes she had with me before travelling on to her next job. We are getting very good value for money from that young woman and many like her. Communities value and rely on that output.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend on the manner in which he introduced the BBC debate today; I think it was important. I would take issue, however, with some aspects of the debate, particularly the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Addington. He and I agree on one thing, in that we both support the same sport, but I had to watch the internationals on Amazon Prime—I had to have a smart television to do it—rather than on the BBC.
I will concentrate my remarks entirely on the licence fee, because it funds 70% to 75%—depending on what you read—of the BBC’s content costs, and the BBC depends on it to continue. The licence fee was initially introduced in 1924 to cover one radio in a house. TV was then included in the licence fee in 1946, and it covered one television broadcasting the BBC. Since then, it has continued to progress, but it is the same fee for everybody, whether they have one, two, three, four or more devices in their house. Therefore, a poor person with only one TV—a colour TV, maybe—pays the same licence fee as somebody who has two, three, four or five TVs, as we do in our four-bedroom house in Hamilton, in Scotland. We have three televisions, more than one radio and many things we can watch TV on, so we have four or five things that the licence fee does not take account of.
I think everybody should pay the licence fee and I am a supporter of the BBC, but I believe that its funding is wrong in that it ought to, somehow or other, be reflective of the way in which our society has changed and the technology has changed. We should think about the licence fee but, more than that, we should make sure it reflects what has happened in our society. I am prepared to pay more, whether directly, through providers or in whatever way I pay my licence fee. However, somehow or other, I think we have to reflect—and I am prepared to pay more to get more—that the licence fee as we know it is probably the most regressive tax, and it is a tax, even though it is purely to fund the BBC. The ONS has also said that.
I am well aware of the time I am taking up, so I end by saying that I am prepared to pay more for my licence fee.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I also declare the fact that I worked for the BBC. In fact, I think I may have been rejected for the BBC traineeship scheme in the same year as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, but I went on to have a very good and enjoyable career there. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. I think in a previous debate I referred to him as a creative industry in himself, and I would repeat that now. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for a wonderful maiden speech. He comes from a city which is surely one of our most creative.
Last week was a good one for the creative industries. They got recognition, via “Peppa Pig”, from the Prime Minister for the wealth they generate for the UK economy. That is excellent—but, just to put the record straight, “Peppa Pig” was never rejected by the BBC, and though born in the UK, it is now the property of an American company. But the BBC has funded, created and distributed global gold such as “Doctor Who”, “Blue Planet” and “Mastermind”, and BBC Studios has supported the creation of the favourite programme of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, “Strictly Come Dancing”, and mine, “Small Axe”. The BBC is the world’s leading television distributor outside the US.
The point about our creative industries—the fastest growing sector of our economy—is that they involve an interwoven set of relationships and support systems very much nurtured by our PSBs, and the BBC is the cornerstone of all of this. Pivotal in supporting them through innovation, investment, skills and training, the effect of initial BBC spending is multiplied as it ripples through the economy from region to region and sector to sector.
As my noble friend Lord Foster said, the BBC is emphatically not just about news and current affairs, as so many politicians seem to think. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that it is not just about comedy programmes either. As well as showcasing British culture and creativity, the BBC functions as a catalyst for the creative industries as a whole. It invests over £1.4 billion in TV content production in the UK and generates for the UK economy the equivalent of £2 of economic value for every £1 of licence fee it receives. In other words, it doubles its money.
The investment and R&D the BBC put into iPlayer, for instance, was a trail-blazer for the global streamers. I have a quote for your Lordships:
“I think the impact the BBC has had over the last few decades in building the profile of the UK creatively, in nurturing talent, in its investment in production and so forth, is one of the key reasons we have chosen to make our home here and why we are such strong supporters of what they do and want to see them continue doing that.”
Those are not the words of BBC DG Tim Davie or BBC chair Richard Sharp, but those of Benjamin King from Netflix. The streamers want to be here because of the BBC—they do not want to annihilate it. This is not politics; it is creativity.
Contrary to what some have said today, the BBC is far from London-centric. BBC investment over decades has helped to develop significant local creative hubs across the UK, with major production centres in Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Salford, Bristol and Birmingham, not to mention a network of local radio and TV which ensures a spotlight is shone on important regional issues and, of course, supplies local news.
That brings me back to BBC chair Richard Sharp and a speech he made the other day in which he said:
“I believe that the case for a well-funded, modern and efficient national broadcaster has not diminished over the past decade”—
reflecting what the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said—and he added that it has “grown”. His powerfully put argument was largely predicated on what he referred to as
“today’s global news and information landscape”.
We need the BBC, not just for its contribution to our economic well-being and social cohesion but because, so far as the dissemination of true, factual, unbiased news and information, the times we live in are quite frankly scary.
The BBC remains the most trusted broadcaster in the world, as the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Vaizey and Lord Bragg, mentioned. In this era of fake news, it is more important than ever as an impartial and reliable news source. Its universal availability and independent, well-informed and neutral approach have been particularly essential during the pandemic, when untruths and conspiracy theories have been rife. Does the Minister agree that we need news that can distance itself from the partisan and that this is provided by the BBC and, of course, our other great PSB outlets?
In my view, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool spoke most eloquently on the question of impartiality. To pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, when I worked in the BBC, the noble Lord, Lord Grade, was director of programmes; he now sits on the Conservative Benches. Jeremy Paxman was the “Newsnight” rottweiler; he declared himself a Tory when he left the BBC. The bête noire of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, Nick Robinson, was once president of the Oxford University Conservative Association; and Sir Robbie Gibb was head of BBC Westminster, in overall charge of BBC political programmes for years. I rest my case—although, of course, the BBC did employ the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and me.
Internationally, the BBC is one of the greatest sources of British soft power, as mentioned by so many across this House—my noble friend Lord McNally, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, of course, and many others. When he was Foreign Secretary, our Prime Minister described the BBC as
“the single greatest and most effective ambassador for our culture and our values”
and a crucial contributor to Britain’s role as a “soft power superpower.” As Prime Minister, he launched his vision for a post-Brexit global Britain in a document presented to Parliament which is redolent with praise for the BBC. We on these Benches agree. As well as playing a hugely important role in promoting the UK, it is the only British media brand with truly global recognition.
Turning to funding, I mentioned earlier that the licence fee doubles its money so far as investment in the creative economy goes. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said—that we have to look to the future—but we believe that for the moment, it continues to ensure that the BBC is an independent universal broadcaster committed to serving everyone. That universality, as my noble friend Lord Foster mentioned, is an essential part of public service broadcasting which cannot survive paywalls and subscriptions; everyone pays less in our present system and everyone has access to the content. Actually, as the noble Lord, Lord Grade, said last year, there is a direct relationship between your source of finance and the kind of programmes you make; it is as simple as that.
However, the setting of the licence fee has to be free from political interference, so it is worrying to hear the Secretary of State say:
“The perspective from the BBC is that they will get a settlement fee and then we’ll talk about how they’re going to change. But my perspective is, tell me how you’re going to change and then you get a settlement.”
That is the wrong way round. Will the Government commit to setting up an independent BBC licence fee commission? I think I know the answer to that.
Alongside the issue of global Britain, which, in the Prime Minister’s own words, needs a strong, thriving BBC, is the part the corporation plays in levelling up. It feeds directly into this, supplying training and making programmes across the country, boosting local economies and utilising local skills. The BBC has held us together through the pandemic, providing news the people can trust and essential support for home schooling, as my noble friend Lord Storey mentioned. So, can the Minister explain why this Government are seeking to slash the funds of the BBC?
What the BBC needs, alongside the other PSBs, is prominence on all EPGs extended to all digital TV platforms. It needs secure and adequate funding. The Prime Minister in his CBI speech on global Britain called for support for the cultural and creative sectors; in which case, include the BBC. Global Britain needs it; a levelled-up Britain needs it; so, support it, do not unravel it. The BBC is precious; it is unique. As the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said, it is ingenious and illogical, but once lost, it is never coming back.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bragg for giving your Lordships’ House the opportunity to consider the value of the BBC to audiences in the UK and across the world; and, of course, for underpinning the debate with his renowned experience, insight and wisdom. From these Benches I offer the warmest of welcomes to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and congratulate him on his maiden speech. I can only observe that the BBC’s loss was the gain of both the Church and this House.
It is so important to recognise, as we have done today, the place of the BBC and the need to protect its independence, as emphasised by my noble friend Lord Triesman. As a far-reaching media platform, the BBC commissions production and acts as a stimulus in many different ways and in many media formats. If it is not nurtured, the impact goes way beyond the BBC itself and undermines the whole of the media ecosystem, with a poorer end result. One only has to look at countries that have weak public service broadcasting to understand the downward effect.
As has been said, while the BBC may not be perfect—and it would not be reasonable to expect it to be so—it is a national treasure and internationally recognised as a much-valued broadcaster. As my noble friend Lord Griffiths observed, often, radio is the only means of broadcast available in the developing world.
While there will always be debates about the nature of the licence fee, as raised by my noble friend Lord Maxton, and the correct level of public subsidy for the BBC’s output, there is no doubt that viewers are offered tremendous value for money. The BBC supports our creative industries, engages in international collaborations, runs its own training and graduate schemes and helps to equip future generations with a variety of creative skills. It not only generates an estimated £4.9 billion of economic output but spreads its value across the length and breadth of the country, having been a key player in the evolution of Salford’s MediaCity, for example, while maintaining a presence in the nations and regions. When I was a constituency MP in Lincoln, I knew only too well the importance of local radio, TV and newspapers, because all those were far more influential and trusted than any amount of national coverage I might possibly secure.
Across the world, the global news service carries the flag for the UK’s international brand and reputation, as explained so eloquently by my noble friend Lady Jay. It reaches 438 million people across the world every single week, broadcasting in 43 languages, with correspondents in 75 news bureaux. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, the BBC gives a voice to those who do not have one.
Like so many of our public services, the BBC has had to respond nimbly to the unprecedented circumstances presented by nearly two years of the Covid-19 pandemic. During this time, it has been a trusted source of news and facts, globally and at home; it has stepped up to provide educational resources to children throughout the national lockdowns; and it has responded to numerous challenges such as those posed by the rapid growth of online streaming services. My noble friend Lord Stansgate was absolutely right to speak about the increased thirst for facts and information at a time of crisis.
In some senses, the BBC has become a victim of its own success. People have high expectations, and whether it is original programming or sports coverage, they expect the very best—and expect it to be done their way, as my noble friend Lord Liddle said.
Therefore, although one Conservative MP recently berated “Doctor Who” for casting a female lead, which supposedly robbed young boys of a role model, many more argued that it promoted inclusivity. As my noble friend Lord Young said, it ensures that people from all walks of life are able to see characters on screen who reflect their own backgrounds and life experiences.
The recent Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games were screened primarily on the Discovery network, restricting the BBC’s coverage and, therefore, disappointing many who had become used to the corporation’s comprehensive sports offering. The listed events regime means that public service broadcasters can afford to bid for the biggest sporting events and ensures that everyone can access them, regardless of ability to pay. This is in urgent need of reform. Very soon, we will see the marketing of the rights to the next four Olympic and Paralympic Games. With both summer Games—Los Angeles in 2028 and Brisbane in 2032—happening overnight for those of us on UK time, digital on-demand services will be critical to delivering this content. Do the Government have any plans to review both the contents of the list of events and the technicalities associated with it? If the Minister seeks to modernise this regime to ensure that digital rights are included—as I hope he will—how will these necessary changes be taken forward?
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referenced, the BBC has played a huge role in popularising women’s sport. Even though the Government looked at adding the women’s equivalents to the men’s events to this list back in 2019, this has not yet happened. Can the Minister update the House on progress? I urge him to act to rectify this disparity as soon as possible, particularly in the light of the inspiration provided by the recent Olympics and Paralympics. It is important to create a legacy by harnessing that interest in order to inspire women and girls to take part in exercise and sport at whatever level they choose. There is an opportunity here to promote good health and well-being and to close the gap between those who can and those who cannot access it. I urge the Minister to take this on board.
There will, of course, always be questions asked of the BBC, as we have heard in the debate today. I do not believe that there is any great appetite to see it undermined—whether that be through funding restrictions or other, potentially more back-door, means. With this in mind, if we expect the BBC to continue to do everything we value, the Government need to ensure that it is properly resourced. However, if the Government are determined—for whatever reason—to weaken the BBC, they must be honest with the public about what they would be doing, and why. They must give the public a choice on whether that would be acceptable. I suspect that the answer would come through loud and clear, as has the feeling in your Lordships’ House today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for securing and for opening this enjoyable and important debate. There are many in your Lordships’ House who have experience of the BBC—either because they or members of their family have worked there. There is no one who can hold a candle to the noble Lord’s wealth and breadth of experience at the corporation. As he said, that began 60 years ago this year when he joined as a graduate trainee. I can only agree with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, that that was a very good hire indeed on the part of the BBC.
I also join those noble Lords who welcomed the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and congratulated him on his excellent maiden speech. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, when she said that the BBC’s loss is a gain for the Church of England and for your Lordships’ House. I was struck by what the right reverend Prelate said about the need for calm scrutiny and careful consideration of not just what we say but how we say it. This is an important lesson for this place as well as for public discourse in many arenas.
The BBC is a great national institution of which we should all be proud. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said, the BBC is a “beacon” for news reporting and the arts around the globe. It is a first-rate broadcaster, a cultural cornerstone and a producer of some of the best television and radio in the world. It holds a unique place in our cultural heritage. In its near 100-year existence so far, it has contributed enormously to the British sense of self, as it has both evolved and endured during the last century.
Beyond our shores, the BBC carries British values and identities to a worldwide audience which has more than doubled in the last decade, and reaches hundreds of millions of people every day. The BBC is the single biggest investor in original British content, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, noted. In 2019 alone, the corporation spent more than £1.4 billion on original UK television content. Some 54% of its commissions went to independent productions, of which 57% were from outside London. The BBC’s focus on British TV production also attracts investment from others. In 2019, more than £1.2 billion of third-party production spend was directly attributable to the BBC’s grass-roots investments. As noble Lords have pointed out, it acts as a catalyst.
The BBC’s UK-wide investments are reflected in its output. As noble Lords have rightly said, this has been a lifeline for many people during the pandemic—whether through the trusted information highlighted by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, or through Bitesize, which helped those who were home-schooling, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, mentioned. The invented escapism of new programmes, such as Michael Sheen’s and David Tennant’s “Staged” brought a smile to many faces of people stuck at home.
As my noble friend Lord Vaizey of Didcot said, we all have our preferences and partialities about the BBC. Perhaps we even have our rituals. I wake up to the “Today” programme every morning. I fall asleep to “Today in Parliament”—not, I hasten to add because of the content of the speeches therein.
The BBC is a leader in British programming. Despite increasing competition in the entertainment sector, it is a conduit through which outstanding homegrown talent arrives on our screens, in our speakers and, increasingly, on our smartphones. The BBC’s approach to funding talent will be crucial to our creative industries and the many world-class creative professionals working within them, as the sector recovers from the effects of the pandemic and continues to grow at a brilliant speed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, noted. The Government also welcome the BBC’s pledge to move two-thirds of its staff outside London. This will ensure even more diverse programming and create a BBC that better represents every Briton.
The BBC’s reach and influence extend far beyond our shores. This debate rightly has a global focus too. The BBC World Service is the world’s largest international broadcaster. It provides accurate and impartial news, analysis and discussion in more than 40 languages. The BBC recently confirmed that the World Service audience is now 364 million people—its highest ever global figure. In an era of fake news and viral misinformation, the value of a free press has never been so important. The BBC World Service is, therefore, an essential vehicle for information across the world. Founded in the early 1930s, it continues to be just as relevant today—perhaps increasingly so.
Following government investment of £291 million, the BBC World Service has expanded and enhanced its services as part of the World 2020 programme. Today, it broadcasts in dozens of languages—from Indonesian to Igbo and from Punjabi to Portuguese. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, stressed the importance of the BBC’s Russian output. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, rightly spoke of the bravery of the staff of the World Service in their work. Its comprehensiveness and inclusivity are unparalleled.
A number of noble Lords asked about the funding of the World Service. The framework agreement guarantees that the budget for the World Service must be at least £254 million until April 2022. The Government are engaging with the BBC on the future of World Service funding as part of the discussions about the licence fee settlement. While details of the grant-in-aid settlement are still to be finalised, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is also committed to providing grant-in-aid funding for the BBC World Service through to 2025.
The Government support the BBC’s mission to bring high-quality and impartial news to international audiences. It is a crucial asset to Britain’s soft power and influence across the world, and its reporting is a precious resource to many who view it. The Government also support the BBC’s continued focus on global commercial opportunities, of which noble Lords spoke, working in conjunction with ITV and other partners. By continuing that work, the BBC is increasingly able to export great British content and values around the globe.
However, the Government have been clear that there are areas where the BBC can and should improve. It is perhaps pertinent that the BBC is still often known affectionately as “Auntie”, and, like all families, people can speak with both love and frustration about the corporation, with sincere thoughts about how it can improve and continue to flourish. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who says that we have almost a duty to criticise. I hope that we can do that, in the spirit of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, in a calmly critical way and provide the calm scrutiny which is needed.
The BBC knows this too. The Dyson report and subsequent Serota review identified that significant changes should be made in order to provide assurance to Parliament and the public, and restore the BBC’s reputation. While much has changed since Martin Bashir’s interview with the late Diana, Princess of Wales, there is still scope for improvements to be made. The Serota review’s recommendations include an overhaul of the BBC’s approach to impartiality and transparency, and tackling what staff have called a “culture of defensiveness”.
The review also identified the risks of groupthink at the BBC, something that a number of noble Lords alighted on today. Like all big and long-established institutions, there is a risk, as with so many others, of succumbing to a “we know best” attitude that can be detached both from the criticism and the values of all parts of the nation that it serves. The BBC must continue to commit to improving diversity of opinion and perspectives at all levels in defending the pluralism of which my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere spoke. The BBC should also enhance opportunities for underrepresented groups of people, particularly those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, to access and enjoy and have careers at the BBC. It is right that the BBC reflects all communities across the UK, both on and off the screen.
The Government support the BBC. We want to see it rectify the institutional failings that led to the events in the Dyson report. A renewed focus on editorial standards, impartiality and accountability is essential in rebuilding trust. In that context, we welcome the BBC’s 10-point Impartiality and Editorial Standards action plan, and the commitment to implement the recommendations of the Serota review in full. But the proof, as ever, will be in the pudding. As Ofcom outlined in its annual report on the BBC last week, while the action plan is a good start, it needs to be delivered. The BBC must move forward with its plan as quickly as possible and should do so with appropriate transparency. This is necessary to show to the public the BBC’s real commitment to reform.
The Government also agree with findings in Ofcom’s recent report that the BBC
“must keep evolving to be relevant to all audiences”.
That is not a partisan point. Indeed, it was clearly articulated earlier in the week by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who cannot take part in our debate today. I would not presume to paraphrase the noble Lord, who speaks with great care and consideration, but I will quote from the article that he wrote. He explained that he would be unable to be part in this debate as he is chairing another meeting, but that
“if I could, I’d be loud in my praises of the Corporation. But I’d also have some stern criticism. Radio 4 has become so determined to address multicultural diversity, gender issues and identity politics that it forgets about all-embracing inclusion. People who live outside a narrow class of well-off professionals with rigidly right-on opinions, almost all of them in London, no longer feel included by the station.”
While not everyone will agree with every word of what the noble Lord said, it is clear that there are groups across the country who do not feel represented by the BBC, and it needs to do better in engaging those audiences across the UK, so that criticism like that can be met and need not be levelled.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, about the soft but important power of programmes such as “Strictly Come Dancing” in telling stories and increasing the representation of gay and deaf people, for instance. But there are so many other stories that need to be told too—points made by my noble friend Lord Lilley, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in his well-made point about elite-level sport and the diversity that we need there.
On that point, and the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on listed events for sporting endeavours, we are considering the proposals made by Ofcom on the listed events framework but, at this stage, think that the current regime strikes an appropriate balance in ensuring that significant sporting events are available to as wide an audience as possible, with the ability of sporting organisations to generate revenues to invest in their sports. But we will of course continue to keep that issue under review, with the Olympics and other big sporting events coming up.
The Government will shortly begin work on the mid- term charter review, which will examine the governance and regulation of the corporation. This will consider whether the current arrangements are working effectively or if further reform is required. We have also committed to examining the licence fee funding model ahead of the next charter review. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, knows the answer to that question: work on this will begin well in advance of the end of the current charter period.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, raised the question of gender equality at the BBC. I do not know whether other noble Lords enjoy watching former general election night programmes as much as I do or have seen the broadcast of the 1970 general election, when my noble friend Lady Fookes was first elected to another place. It went viral, as is said nowadays, when her interview with Sir Robin Day, moments after her election to the House of Commons, was replayed. The way he spoke to her as a new female Member of Parliament was shocking to modern ears, and deserves to be. I am glad to say that much progress has been made in the intervening years.
As a public service broadcaster funded by licence fee payers, the BBC has a responsibility to set an example for others and lead the way in promoting equality in the workplace. The Government are disappointed to learn that the median gender pay gap at BBC Studios actually increased to 11.2% from 9% in the previous financial year. It is for the BBC to determine how to close its gender pay gap, and we expect to see improvement in next year’s disclosure. As in so many areas of national life, transparency is vital in this area, and the BBC’s pay disclosure shows that it still has work to do. It is vital that we continue to see these figures in future years, so that licence fee payers can monitor progress.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Vaizey, rather than my noble friend Lord Hannan, on the importance of local radio stations and local BBC work. Local and regional news coverage provide a vital service, providing information about local public affairs, holding local decision-makers to account and providing a forum for community decisions, as well as important information in relation to floods, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle pointed out, or storms, such as Storm Arwen, which we discussed before this debate.
The Government ensured that, in its royal charter, the BBC has a duty to consider its market impact and to ensure that it seeks to avoid adverse impacts on competition. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, also pointed to the welcome and important work of the Local Democracy Reporting Service. Under the new regulatory system introduced by the Government in 2017, the BBC board must ensure that the BBC complies with its charter duties. Ofcom was established as the BBC regulator to ensure that the BBC is robustly held to account.
The BBC is a beacon for reporting and the arts around the world. It provides distinctive British programming, supports our creative industries at a domestic level, and delivers quality output and news on an international scale. It is a priceless national institution of which we should all be proud, and we are. It is because the Government support the BBC that we are focused on encouraging it to improve and reform. We want the BBC to continue to succeed, to meet the challenges of a fast-changing media environment and to continue the mission set by the late Lord Reith to inform, educate and entertain for many more generations to come.
Lord Bragg (Lab)
I thank everyone who took part in the debate. There were a lot of interesting speeches. It shows that I am a bit taken by surprise when I use the word “interesting”, because it is an easy and ordinary word. It was fascinating to hear the level of support for the BBC; I had not quite expected it to be so warm and deep. It was equally intriguing to hear people criticise the BBC in such a well-informed way. The BBC, like any institution, does not like to take on critics, even friendly fire as it may be. But there are things wrong with the BBC, as I said once or twice, and things that could be improved. With great respect, I started to get worried when the Minister said that the BBC should do this, would do that and needed such and such—if it is going to be prescribed from the top in that way, especially when these things are coming up in the next two or three years, we will all have real worries again.
When the debate finished, I thought, “Well, we’re in quite a settled state”, but if the Government are going to say, “We’re going to take this opportunity to do this, that and the other, and look at this, that and the other”, there will be worries. The BBC is taking care of itself pretty well. Its critics around the place have been listened to—I hope that more of them will be listened to after this debate because their criticisms were so good—but it also has the support of so many people for the right reasons. It can go in the right direction if it is given that support and that support increases.
I thank noble Lords for their speeches and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for such a fine entrance. I am delighted that we have had this debate.
Adult Social Care
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I thank the Government for the Statement, which has been a long time coming.
First, we are told that we have a health and social care Bill to deal with integration across the NHS and social care. Instead, we get a giant Bill that is largely about NHS reorganisation to undo the structures set up by this Government in 2012. We are also told that there is a plan to fix social care, but we now have a government levy that has working-class families paying for extra funding that could in any event result in the NHS swallowing up most of the money to deal with the ever-growing waiting lists for vital treatment, with little left for social care. Finally, we have the grand announcement of the care cap, for which there was strong cross-party support when it was first proposed by Andrew Dilnot in 2011 and legislated for in 2014. However, it is now due to be delayed for yet another two years and introduced at half the level recommended by Dilnot, with the terrible and deadly sting in the tail of the last-minute amendment to the NHS Bill that was forced through the Commons last week and means that state-funded care costs will not be counted towards the care cap at all.
I remind the House that we have waited for this social care White Paper for four years, with unexplained delay after delay against a backdrop of expectation that, when it finally came, the NHS and care Bill would embrace NHS and social care integration. The proposals for this and other measures in the White Paper should have been an integral part of the Bill, which we will begin to debate next week. Can the Minister tell the House how the integrated care system under the Bill will be integrated for social care? Will there be another piece of legislation? If so, what will it seek to do?
Of course, Labour has called for and supports a number of the measures in the White Paper, such as improving the housing options available to older and disabled people and the potential for technology to improve standards of care. However, there are two central flaws in the Government’s latest approach. First, Ministers have utterly failed to deal with the immediate pressures facing social care as we head into one of the most difficult winters on record. Secondly, they have failed to set out the long-term vision and reforms that we need to deliver a care system fit for the future.
Last week, we learned that a staggering 400,000 older and disabled people are now on council waiting lists for care, with 40,000 of them waiting more than a year. There are more than 100,000 staff vacancies and turnover rates are soaring. Because of these shortages, 1.5 million hours of home care could not be delivered between August and October alone, and half of all councils report care homes going bust or home providers handing back contracts. Hundreds of thousands of older and disabled people are being left without the vital support they need, piling even more pressure on their families and the NHS at the worst possible time.
Does the Minister recognise the figure, reported this week, that 42,000 care staff have left their jobs since April? How will this White Paper ensure that care homes facing huge staff shortages can stay open and recruit and retain staff? Absolutely nothing new has been announced to deal with these crucial issues. Where is the plan to end waiting lists for care? Unless people get support when and where they need it, they will end up needing more expensive residential or hospital care, which is worse for them and for the taxpayer. We know that improving access is the first step in delivering a much more fundamental shift in the focus of support towards prevention and early intervention so that people can continue to live independently in their own homes for as long as possible. Without enough staff with the right training working in the right teams, this will never be achieved.
Where is the long-term strategy to transform the pay, training and terms and conditions of care workers, and to deliver at least 500,000 additional care workers by 2030, just to meet the growing demand? Why do the Government persist in having separate workforce strategies for the NHS and social care when the two are inextricably linked? Where is the joined-up strategy for the whole health and social care workforce?
The proposals in the White Paper for England’s 11 million family carers, who provide the vast majority of care in this country, are, quite frankly, pitiful. Unpaid carers have been pushed to the limit by trying to look after the people they love. Almost half said that they had not had a break for five years, even before the pandemic struck, and 80% of them are now providing more care than ever before. However, the funding announced amounts to just £1.60 more for each unpaid carer per year. Does the Minister not agree that families deserve so much better?
What was needed today was a long-term vision that finally puts social care where it belongs: on an equal footing with the NHS at the heart of a modernised welfare state. Can the Minister explain how this White Paper does that and delivers the resources needed to bring it about? At its best, social care is about far more than just helping people to get up, wash, dress and get fed, vital though this is. It is about ensuring that all older and disabled people can live the life they choose in the place they call home, with the people they love and doing the things that matter to them most. This should have been the guiding mission of the White Paper, with clear proposals to make users genuine partners in their care by transforming the use of direct payments and personal budgets, and ensuring that the views of users and families drive change in every part of the system, from how services are commissioned to how they are regulated and delivered.
The Government’s proposals fall woefully short of the mark and the reality of their so-called reforms is now clear: it is a tax hike on working people that will not deal with the problems in social care now. It will not even stop them having to sell their homes to pay for care, as the Prime Minister has repeatedly promised. The simple fact is that, under the Government’s proposals, if you own a home worth £1 million more than 90% of your assets will be protected, but if your home is worth £100,000 you could end up losing it all. Millions of working people are paying more tax, not to improve their family’s care or stop their own life savings being wiped out but to protect the homes of the wealthiest. This is not fixing the crisis in social care, let alone real social care reform. It is unfair and just wrong.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. It is no exaggeration to say that we on these Benches, along with many other noble Lords, have been repeatedly pushing Ministers to publish this White Paper for years. It is now two and a half years since the Prime Minister announced from the steps of 10 Downing Street:
“My job is to protect you or your parents or grandparents from the fear of having to sell your home to pay for the costs of care. And so I am announcing now—on the steps of Downing Street—that we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve … that is the work that begins immediately behind that black door.”
We were pushing because it was evident even then that adult social care was already in crisis. High levels of staffing vacancies, and cuts to local government meant that fewer people who had been entitled to state support would receive it, as the criteria for eligibility were repeatedly tightened. Even then, it was common knowledge that private patients were having to subsidise those funded by the state, as the amount given to local authorities did not match the actual costs of that care.
Even allowing for the inevitable delays caused by the pandemic, this Government have insisted on continuing with their structural reforms, rushing through the Health and Care Bill—which NHS leaders are now asking to be delayed because of the continuation of coronavirus and its pressure on all NHS services—as well as the health and social care levy, rushed through your Lordships’ House in one day, six weeks ago, which now requires amendment in the Health and Care Bill, which will mean that house owners outside the greater south-east will end up paying a higher percentage of their assets than those in the greater south-east. So much for protecting them from the fear of having to sell your home to pay for the costs of care—yet another broken promise from this Prime Minister.
In setting the scene, we and others have pushed for the publication of the White Paper prior to the Bill starting its journey in the Lords, because we cannot understand how any Government could restructure integrated care services between the NHS and the care sector without knowing what plans they have for the future of the adult social care sector. Yesterday’s paper was deeply disappointing—but I think the Government know that, which is why Ministers announced yet another White Paper next year on integration. But hang on: was that not why this White Paper was due to be published? If there is to be another White Paper, the timing is important. Can the Minister say when this new White Paper will be published? This one certainly is not the answer.
Allocating some money to developing the workforce in five years’ time will not even start to address the current crisis in social care: with well over 100,000 vacancies; with social care providers still having to pay for expensive PPE that is provided free to the NHS; and with providers handing back state-funded payments to their local authorities because they cannot provide a safe service for those patients. It does not address the current practice, caused by lack of funding, of domiciliary care workers not being paid as they travel between clients. It does nothing to change the experience of unpaid carers. There are lots of great ideas about following best practice and getting people to talk together, but there is no real offer of funding for regular respite care or other benefits and support.
Reading the full White Paper, the truth about the promises in the Statement begin to be revealed. The Minister knows that, from these Benches, we have repeatedly emphasised the importance of housing in relation to care and support for adults of all ages. It was, therefore, perhaps encouraging to read the recurring phrase
“Making every decision about care a decision about housing”,
but closer examination of the funding for disabled facilities grants increases shows that there will be £570 million a year in 2022–23, 2023-24 and 2024–25. The current budget for this year is already £537 million. Although continued funding is welcome news, this is only a £33 million—or 6%—increase, which, given rising costs of labour and materials, will barely keep up with inflation. It is not the transformative grant that the Statement trumpets. On the funding for
“a new service to make minor repairs and changes in peoples’ homes, to help people remain independent and safe”,
for which most authorities are able to offer only £1,000 to £2,000 per person before they have to look at their assets, no cash amount is specified, but it is hoped that this will give a boost to handyperson services that are so highly valued by older people and provide such a great return on investment.
It is impossible to transform way our social care provision works, keeping people in their homes, unless this White Paper demonstrates the practical support that the Government can give to make that happen. The real difficulty we face is that staff in the sector, providers, the NHS and, above all, the users and their families are severely let down by the White Paper. The word “dignity” is used repeatedly in the Statement. The reality is the opposite: no vision, no real reform and, worst of all, no attempt to deal with the current crisis.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses for the points they raise. But let us be clear that for many years—not just five, 10, 15 or 20 years; some noble Lords have said that we knew this issue was coming after the war, in the 1950s—the demographics of the country meant that we were going to have an ageing population, and successive Governments of all colours have not grasped the nettle. They have commissioned a report, it has gathered dust on the shelf and another report has come along. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Lilley and others, have written papers for various think tanks, but those also gathered dust and nothing has been done. When I have spoken to friends of all political colours, they have said that, frankly, it was too difficult and there were other priorities. So the Government should be given some credit for finally grasping the nettle.
We have set out a vision. Before you set out a strategy, you have to set out a vision, and we have done so. This is a 10-year vision, and we have committed to the first three years. Throughout the White Paper, we have said that we will continue to consult the sector—experts, carers, both paid and unpaid, local authorities and nursing or care home providers—to make sure that we get the right balance and understand the issues. As technology develops—medical technology, information technology and other technology that enables people to live in their own homes—we will see how the vision might adapt, rather than laying out everything from day one. We have laid out the vision and the spending for the first three years, but we will continue to consult to ensure that we are adapting to the changing technology and circumstances.
Compared to the current system, more people will be supported with their social care costs and have greater certainty over what they pay and receive higher-quality care. We think the plans announced represent the best value proposals. As many noble Lords will appreciate, that means balancing many issues: how many people are supported; how much they are supported; and the cost to taxpayers of offering that support. We believe that the plan sets out an appropriate level for the cap and balances that with people’s personal responsibility for planning for their later years. A number of experts have written recently asking why financial advisers advise people to build up ever-larger sums of money but they then leave it to their children at the end of their lives, rather than depleting their assets as they get older to look after themselves. We were clear that the £86,000 would be the amount individuals will need to pay towards the cost of their care, and the amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill reflects the changes. We believe the new system is necessary, fair and responsible.
We admit that the Care Act 2014 was landmark legislation informed by a range of partners, and we want to build on those strong foundations, rather than reinvent the wheel. Many of the provisions in that Bill act as a platform for better, even more joined-up health and social care in future. We are the first Government to announce that we are going to integrate health and social care, and that we will have a system of healthcare all the way through—not social care as a bolt-on afterwards—from your birth all the way through your life.
The Health and Social Care Bill contains several provisions built on the Care Act 2014. We have looked at assurance, with a new duty on the Care Quality Commission, and we have looked at data, to make sure we have the appropriate data on adult social care. People should pass from hospital to social care with no delay and as seamlessly as possible. We have looked at provider payments and the better care fund. The Bill also proposes to put integrated care systems on a statutory footing, which will make sure that, in each area, working with local authorities, account is taken of the needs of social care, joined up with the other parts of the healthcare system.
On 3 November, we published the adult social care winter plan, because we recognise that this is a long-term plan, but we have constantly been listening to stakeholders and have drawn up recommendations with a number of people, including Sir David Pearson, who reviewed last year’s adult social care plan, advisers from SAGE and UKHSA. So we have listened carefully to make sure that we meet some of the short-term issues that we are facing. We have looked at how we can increase spending, where relevant, to make sure that we tackle some of those issues.
Across the House, noble Lords will want to pay tribute to social care workers, both paid and unpaid. We have a track record of responding to workforce pressures—for example, the £162.5 million workforce recruitment and retention fund and the £388 infection control and testing fund. We will continue to keep this situation under control. We are also increasing the rate of the national living wage, which means that many of the lowest-paid care workers will benefit from pay rises. We are also investing at least £0.5 billion in the way we support the development and well-being of our social care workforce—an investment in knowledge, skills, health and well-being, and how we drive the retention of existing staff and boost recruitment. This will set the conditions for professionalisation over a longer period, giving carers recognition. When we look at the social care workforce and how much they are valued, one of the great issues has to be recognition of their skills and giving them a professional development pathway.
In the longer term, as set out in the White Paper, we remain interested in working with commissioners and providers to make that sure care workers have the best terms and conditions possible, including being paid for all the hours possible. This is already set out in our existing market-shaping and commissioning guidance. We will also explore how we can champion best practice and support local authorities, including through the new CQC assurance framework. We acknowledge the prevalence of zero-hours contracts in the social care sector and we are interested in working with commissioners, providers and care workers to understand how those contracts impact this sector.
Chapter 6 of the White Paper sets out three key aims for the workforce strategy over the next three years, backed up by £500 million of investment. We want to create a workforce that is well-trained and well-developed, healthy and supported, sustainable and recognised. We want to make sure that social care is seen as a rewarding career—that it is not only heart- warming but has professional recognition. I should stop there and take some more questions at this point.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister say exactly what the Government are doing right now to recruit more carers, in view of the huge shortfall in the workforce? Are they largely leaving it to hard-pressed local authorities?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government are in conversation with local authorities at the moment to look at the short-term issues. That is why we have announced increases in funding, particularly as part of the winter plan. The White Paper we are talking about today looks at the longer term, but we have also recognised the short-term issues, which is why we have announced these increases in spending.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, we have been waiting for four years—sometimes I think I have been waiting 40 years—for a White Paper that contained a vision for social care that would, once and for all, rescue it from its Cinderella role in public services. I did not get that, but I am a glass-half-full person and am relieved by how many times unpaid carers are mentioned and how many warm words there are about identifying, recognising and involving carers. I thank the Government for that.
But family carers are at breaking point now. As my noble friend said, most have not had a single break since the start of the pandemic. They need immediate help, so will the Minister tell the House how the proposals in the White Paper will help stressed carers now? My second question is about integration between health and social care services, which is the only hope for real reform. It is frequently referred to in the White Paper, but there is no vision for how it will be delivered. We understand that another White Paper about integration is being prepared; I wonder why that is necessary when it could have been tackled in this one. Could the Minister update the House on progress and assure me that carers will be consulted as that paper on integration is written?
Lord Kamall (Con)
First, I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness has done for carers over many years. She has personally raised with me issues with carers, both paid and unpaid, as well. The White Paper clearly raises issues of professionalising, training and recognising carers to help make this a rewarding career for many. At the same time, it looks at unpaid carers and understands that, for a number of reasons, they are not all similar. Sometimes they are school-age children. We have looked at young carers and at elderly carers—for example my mother, who, in her 70s, looks after an 80 year-old sister who suffers from dementia. They have different needs.
We are first trying to look at how we can help make their task easier, for example through technology freeing up time. We are also looking at respite and how we can make sure they have breaks. We hope that those conversations will be had at the local level, between ICSs and health professionals having meetings directly with the individuals concerned to make sure that unpaid carers have the appropriate support.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I feel torn on this. On the one hand, it is irritating that the White Paper has come out but everybody wants to bash it, when I am relieved that somebody has suggested something. On the other hand, it is not satisfactory. To ask some immediate questions, the crisis of care staff has already been referred to, but I am concerned that the White Paper is being used to avoid talking about the real crisis now. There are genuine problems in care homes in the aftermath of Covid. It is not just about staff, but the fact that relatives are still being denied face-to-face visits. There is still a climate of risk aversion and fear from some managements, with lots of people with dementia being locked in their rooms. All sorts of terrible things are happening and people do not know what to do. I do not want this White Paper to be used to bat things away.
That was the first thing. Secondly, in the longer term, can the White Paper create that vision and be used as a platform? To be honest, I think it is visionless and technocratic. We need to get talking and involve the nation in developing the vision we need. Everybody has an investment in improving this.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, makes a valid point: we have to look at not only the long-term vision but the short-term issues raised. This is why, on 3 November, we announced the adult social care winter plan for 2021-22. This was developed in conjunction with the NHS and social care stakeholders. We drew on the recommendations of the review of last year’s adult social care winter plan and listened to a number of different stakeholders in setting out the short-term issues.
As the noble Baroness acknowledges, we are the first Government to set out a long-term vision, not just from one electoral cycle to another but for 10 years. We have set out a vision with three years of commitment to specific spending, some of which is a discovery process, because we still have to know what will and will not work, and how to use and integrate technology. By doing that, we have laid down the gauntlet to whatever Government come after us, of whatever political colour, for them to continue to fulfil this vision. It is a vision against which this and future Governments will be measured.
Other politicians from other parties have known about this for many years. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, mentioned waiting for 40 years and others have known about our post-war demographic challenge. We have finally grasped the nettle. We are not going to get everything right, which is why we have not laid out a detailed, prescriptive plan for 10 years. We have laid out a vision of integration, making sure that we use the best technology to support people in their own homes, as much as possible. At the same time, we have committed for the next three years. After that, the challenge is for us to work with all stakeholders to deliver that vision.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I am particularly delighted to see this White Paper and congratulate the Government on publishing it in this timeframe. However, we need to look closely at workforce needs, at the same time as we look at workforce needs for the Health and Care Bill, because there is a real mismatch between the vision we now have and the staffing for that vision. I welcome this opportunity to hear how the Government think we can tackle that and give young unemployed people good opportunities to come into a proper caring profession.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for the conversations that we have had about this, and a number of other issues, as I got to grips with my brief. She makes a very important point. We have to make sure that social care is seen as an attractive career path and not just something unskilled; we know that there are skills involved, such as empathy. There will also be an increased need for digital skills, and people management skills will be handy in other areas. For far too long, social care has been seen as the poor relation of other parts of the health system. By bringing health and social care together, we are sending a signal that our vision is to put them on an equal footing. We are also explaining how we intend to spend over the next three years. We challenge everyone—stakeholders, local authorities, everyone—to come forward and help us develop that vision for the long term, and to hold future Governments to account against that vision.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I wish the Minister good luck with his nettle grasping—I think he is going to need it. He will know that the right housing is key to enabling people to remain safely and happily in their home, yet only £300 million, a very small amount, is being promised in the White Paper to integrate housing into health and care strategies. Take, as an example, the so-called extra care units, where people can live in a flat with appropriate on-site support; that will mean only about 3,000 such units across England. Can the Minister say over what period that money is being offered? Is it three years or a different period? How many units of supported housing can be provided for that amount of money?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue. We want to ensure that people can live in their own home for longer. We have committed a sum of money and been quite clear that practical changes can be made, such as installing stairlifts, level-access showers, wet rooms, sensors, et cetera. New technology is constantly being developed to meet people’s needs in their own home. To this end, we have committed a further £573 million per year to the disabled facilities grant, from 2022-23 to 2024-25. We are also talking to local authorities and others, looking at whether we need to increase the subsidy amount per adaptation and reconsider funding allocation to better align with local needs, as well as funding a new service to enable minor repairs and changes to people’s homes. We need to know what needs to be done, and local authorities and others can come back to us on the adaptations that they need and the best way to achieve them. We must look at best practice to make sure that, as technology develops, people can stay in their own home for longer.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest; my daughter-in-law is a full-time unpaid carer. First, the report says that unpaid carers’ money will go up to £69.70 a week. That is fine if you also have a job, but quite a few unpaid carers have given up their jobs to be unpaid carers, so that is all that they have got, other than the benefit that the person they are caring for may get. That is a pretty tough situation. Secondly, unpaid carers get very few breaks—some get no breaks at all. We must devise a way of looking after the 10 million or 11 million people who keep everything going. Although there are aspirations in this document, I would like to see them translated into something absolutely practical, so that I can go to an unpaid carer and say, “You’re full time, and something will happen to help you and take off the pressure.” It is a lonely business working full time, on virtually no money, looking after somebody. If the paid carers who come in the mornings or evenings do not turn up, it is the unpaid carers who keep things going. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to that. There is a whole agenda there which many of us will be pushing very hard on.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I know that the noble Lord has been a champion in this area. We have been quite clear that, as we go forward, a number of issues have to be understood. For example, you cannot say that all unpaid carers are the same. They all have different needs: some can work and some cannot work; some can spend a couple of hours working and share their care duties with others; there are sole carers; some are elderly and some are younger. We want all the different partners to come together to discuss individual needs—including respite for carers, to rest and recharge—and to look at their financial situations. We have laid out that those who are not working may be eligible for other benefits on top of the care allowance that they get. We are exploring this. It is a process of discovery and we want to ensure that it works. We have therefore set out the vision and the three-year commitment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I would like to pursue the points that were raised a minute ago by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Watkins. Despite the welcome long-term aspirations in the White Paper, the reality is that the chronic workforce shortages in social care are getting worse, with uncompetitive pay being the main culprit. If Covid surges this winter because of the new variant, these workforce problems will be magnified, with potentially disastrous consequences. There are similar concerns with unpaid carers, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has just said. With no new resources from the new levy coming on stream until October 2023, and all the fragilities that I have just described, what are the Government going to do to address the pay and retention issues now, over this winter?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government have been listening to the workforce and understand its pressures. We recognise that this is the vision, and that we need to look also at the short-term issues. We announced £162.5 million for the workforce recruitment retention fund, and the new Made with Care scheme to recruit social workers and to send a message that social work can be a rewarding career. We are talking to different bodies, including the Department for Education, about how we increase professionalisation. We have also increased the national living wage, meaning that many of the lowest-paid workers will be paid more. We are investing at least half a billion pounds in supporting the development and well-being of the social care workforce, including an investment in knowledge, skills, and well-being. We will work with partners to set the conditions for the professionalisation over a longer period. We cannot do this immediately; we want to consult the education sector and care and social care experts, to give recognition. That will be a precursor to making progress on pay.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the primary obligation of a Government is to provide decent care for those who cannot finance their own care, and that the lowest priority is to provide taxpayers’ funds to enable those who own valuable assets to pass them on to their offspring? If it is possible to enable people to insure against the risk of having to use the value of their home to pay for their own social care, possibly through a state-aided scheme, would that not be desirable? Is he not astonished that the Labour Party, normally the champion of public sector provision and the enemy of channelling public money to the rich, should advocate channelling money to the rich and not a state-funded insurance scheme?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question and pay tribute to him as one of the authors of a paper on funding social care, which had a number of interesting ideas. I am also very grateful to noble Lords across the House who have approached me with different ideas, including from the Labour Benches, these Benches and the Cross Benches. The Government have looked at a number of plans and have decided on this, but we are in conversation with the private insurance industry, including the ABI and others, to discuss what financial products it can offer in response to the changes. Some people are quite happy to take out insurance policies, but it depends on individual wealth levels and circumstances, and a number of different matters. We hope that there will be a development of the private market, and we are in conversations with the insurance industry. It has told this and successive Governments that, at the moment, there is no private sector solution for social care insurance. I regret that and wish that there was. My noble friend’s idea of the state underwriting it is interesting, but many reports have been written. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will writhe in pain at this, but we have drafted that letter. Whatever we do, we will be criticised for it, but we will do this. We have set the vision for the first three years and have set the challenge for all of us to come together to provide the best possible social care for the future.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to reinforce something that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said: the distinction between unpaid and paid care workers is very unfair because people who have to care do not have a choice whether to do so—they just do not get paid. The noble Lord mentioned his mother looking after her sister—there is no choice in that matter. Something ought to be done to redefine the category of unpaid social worker, perhaps by making such people part of universal credit so that they will get a statutory payment as of right—because they are relieving the state of some expenditure on care and, of course, performing a very useful social function.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord makes the very important point that unpaid carers save the state billions of pounds a year with all the work that they do and the love and attention that they give. Sometimes, they do have a choice, but they choose to be carers because they are worried about putting their relative into a home and are not quite sure about that—I understand that. But the fact is that, if they are unpaid, we are looking at how we can support them better. Unpaid carers are very different, and you cannot lump them all into one group: they have different needs and are at different stages of their lives. I emphasise the importance of making sure that we understand how we can personalise that journey for everyone—the cared- for person and the carer. But, if you have given up work, a range of other benefits may be available, and we want to make sure that unpaid carers are equally valued and not penalised for looking after a loved one.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend Lord Lilley’s remark, what percentage of people in need of care will be covered by the £86,000 cap?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am afraid that I do not have the details of that, but I will write to my noble friend.
Afghanistan
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) poverty, and (2) hunger in Afghanistan; and what progress they have made with the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I appreciate the opportunity to bring up the Afghanistan question, largely because, earlier this autumn, I had the privilege of speaking to three Afghan ladies who were trying to raise awareness of the dire situation developing there. When I met them, they were sitting outside the Palace of Westminster, taking part in a hunger strike to demonstrate their disdain for the new Taliban regime. Since our initial meeting, I have begun to understand more deeply the feelings held by those in Afghanistan, and our conversations have raised many questions, including how much global support is still needed to prevent a crisis and how vulnerable people can be protected from this repressive regime.
The ladies told me that Afghan people are scared and, contrary to some of the headlines that we have seen recently, they do not support the backward and fundamentalist Taliban Government. Inside their homes, people are continuing to educate their daughters, read books that are now banned, and give and receive special medical care. These risks are taken to prevent the backsliding on progress. My Afghan guests told me that when the Taliban took over, 20 years of progress were washed away overnight.
The United Nations is reporting that 22.8 million people are currently food insecure in Afghanistan, with 3 million children suffering from acute malnutrition. Dozens of news reports describe the crisis developing, as the country enters winter. Fuel prices are up 75%, hundreds of thousands of people are without homes and vulnerable minorities are being targeted by the Taliban.
We need this Government to take further action to prevent a historic humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. More aid is desperately needed, but the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which was announced in August, has still not been opened. Today is not too soon; this scheme needs to open now, and I call upon this Government to fulfil this promise and help to protect some of the most vulnerable people in a country on the brink of disaster.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for introducing this urgent issue today. I declare my interest: I founded and run the Afghan Women’s Support Forum.
The situation in Afghanistan is an unnecessary tragedy. It is a takeover by the brutal Taliban, causing a breakdown in the banking systems and institutions. Although the Taliban say that they have formed a Government, they actually have no experience of governing. The scenes in the autumn were harrowing, with people desperate to be evacuated. I think we all remember that awful sight of a boy clinging to an aeroplane and falling. Now, there are terrible reports of the Taliban hunting people down and of summary executions and reprisals—a return to cutting off limbs for stealing, while the Taliban go into people’s compounds and take their cars, valuables and whatever else they want.
In spite of journalists now being pushed back and restricted, recent news has been chilling, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has told us. Children are dying of hunger and families are selling their daughters to get money to feed the rest of the family. There are reports of crop failures and, with winter approaching, many remote areas will soon become unreachable. People there are starving, and the Taliban do not appear to be helping at all. Therefore, surely, we in the West cannot stand by and just let this happen. We must send help— and send it quickly.
We must ensure that aid really reaches down into the grass roots. Can we work through organisations that the Taliban have allowed to continue, such as the Red Cross, the Halo Trust, the Aga Khan Development Network and others that are already connected with the communities? Of course, there is UN World Food Programme—but can my noble friend reassure me that this does not take a large percentage, like some of the other UN agencies?
How do we reach the most vulnerable: those fearful and in hiding, and widows, now that they can no longer go out on their own? Others are also frightened to go out: young men are fearful of being seized to be recruited into the Taliban, and young girls are fearful of being snatched to become brides for the fighters.
We in the UK now have the 16 days of activism to stop violence against women and girls, but in Afghanistan, after 20 years of helping to build up the voices and role of women in Afghan society, women’s rights are once again being rolled back and their voices suppressed. Can my noble friend the Minister please tell us what the UK Government are doing to help them?
While I congratulate the Government, our military and officials who worked tirelessly to evacuate people in the autumn, we must not forget those people who are still threatened and desperate to leave Afghanistan—or those who managed to get out but are stuck in third countries that will not allow them to stay and may send them back. After 20 years, surely we have a responsibility to the Afghan people, and we must continue to help.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I intend to focus on the role that Qatar is playing. I apologise—
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I thank the noble Lord. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Roberts for bringing this most important debate, which is not only timely but absolutely vital. The only concern is that we have only an hour. We could talk for so many hours, but perhaps it is right that we have only three minutes each because, actually, the time for the Government to act is now.
The Minister who will be replying on behalf of the Government has development as part of his portfolio. What message can he send to the mothers who are in anguish in hospitals in Afghanistan? According to the BBC, one mother, on the point of giving birth, asked the obstetrician to kill her—not because she was ill in terms of a cancer or a fatal illness, but because she herself was starving and said, “I don’t know how I can live myself. How can I give life to another human being?” The very real point is that many mothers in Afghanistan might give birth, but they cannot give life to those children because, if you are starving, you do not produce the milk to feed the children.
What assessment have the Government made about starvation in Afghanistan, about what aid we are giving or not giving, and about what work can be done to ensure that, while we are not giving money to the Taliban, we are ensuring that mothers are not looking at their dying children? We owe it to Afghanistan; we were there for 20 years; we brought about change in that country, but when the US insisted on leaving earlier this year, we left chaos, carnage and starvation behind.
We also left behind people who were eligible to come here under the ARAP scheme, so what assessment have the Government made of how many people who are eligible for ARAP under category 2, and who were told they could come, are still in the country? What provisions are there for those British Council staff who should be eligible under category 4? Will the Minister say whether the British Council paperwork is sufficient for ARAP 4 and, if not, what additional paperwork is required? When will the Home Office deign to give us the information about the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, because, frankly, we have all waited for far too long?
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, on securing this important debate this afternoon although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said, it is a shame that we have only an hour to touch on these subjects.
Of course, the real shame is that we are having this debate at all. We cannot roll the clock back, but the unilateral decision of the United States, started by former President Trump and continued by President Biden, which led to the precipitate withdrawal of international forces in the summer, has led directly—and there is no getting away from it—to the poverty and hunger that 23 million people in Afghanistan are suffering at the moment.
If we just pause for a moment to think about what we were doing in Afghanistan over the last 20 years, we were actually there to give those people the chance of a better life. At a stroke, that better life was taken away; so what should the response now be from the West? We do not like the Taliban regime, but is that actually a good enough reason to stand on those issues and not give the humanitarian support that the Afghan people really need? I do not believe that it is. There is a saying that my enemy’s enemy is my friend, and in these limited circumstances for a period of time, although we do not like the Taliban and what it is doing, a higher cause is to appeal to our own sensitivity and look after the 23 million people who are suffering in Afghanistan at the moment. Why should we leave it to the NGOs and the charitable sector to pick up these things? That is not right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, referred quite rightly to a number of charities that are working there. I draw attention to Street Child—I declare my interest as a patron of that charity, started by my son in 2008 —which had plans at the start of this year to educate 65,000 children, in southern Afghanistan in the main. It is continuing with those plans and providing food for that community in southern Afghanistan. We should not leave it to the charitable sector to be picking up these things. Governments should actually make a decision that the time has come to bury our difference with the Taliban for the time being, support the people whom we tried to help for the last 20 years and sort out the other issues in slow time.
Frankly, wringing our hands and saying, “It’s awful” is not good enough. The time for action is now. Winter is coming; people are hungry; people are dying; babies cannot be fed. It is not good enough: we have to do more and we have to do it soon.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for introducing this debate and apologise profusely to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who made a powerful speech. I am sorry that I had the wrong speaking order in front of me. I think I also had the wrong time: I thought we were down to two minutes, so I offer my apologies for that as well.
I intend to focus briefly on the role that Qatar is playing in assisting this country, and indeed the world, settling many Afghan refugees who have come out of Afghanistan and routed through Doha. In so doing, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Qatar, until recently so ably led by the late Sir David Amess.
Two months ago, with Sir David, I saw at first hand the outstanding work being undertaken by the Government of Qatar and the international agencies and charities that are seeking to deliver the best outcomes for many desperate families who had to leave Afghanistan suddenly. On my return, I asked what steps our Government planned to take in response to the unaccompanied minors with family links to the UK who had been evacuated from Afghanistan and were in temporary accommodation in Doha. The Home Office was, I am told, working closely with Qatar and UNICEF.
I fully appreciate that our priority is to ensure that these vulnerable children will be safe and well cared-for here in the UK, enjoying a better life than was first given to them through the generosity and friendship shown by the Government of Qatar and the charities that are providing a welcoming, close-knit supporting community. Will the Minister update the House on progress made in helping the unaccompanied children who are heading to the UK: how many are still in Doha, and what action is being taken by our Government and local authorities?
We should follow the world-leading example of the Government of Qatar. To them, engagement on refugees and the famine in Afghanistan does not require recognition. Qatar is undergoing change at a far faster rate than many countries in the Gulf. It is the only country which has invited the International Labour Organization to open an office and work alongside its Government. It deserves the strong support of this country’s Government. It is, after all, doing more than any other Government to provide a gateway for flights and to enable the operation of Kabul airport, where desolate and desperate Afghan refugees can be cared for and passed on. For that we should all be grateful.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, for securing this debate. I declare an interest as co-founder of the school in Kabul.
Afghanistan has been a heavily aid-dependent country for many decades. The withholding of multilateral aid and assistance funds affects not only the vulnerable groups in Afghanistan but a sizeable percentage of the entire population. The urgent need is for bulk food aid and efficient distribution mechanisms. Neither of these can be guaranteed, but given that there are still small independent NGOs working, often at village level, can the Government spell out what plans they have to recruit organisations such as Afghanaid to assist in the delivery of food to rural areas? The major food tonnage will, I guess, come from the World Food Programme, but has the UK any official presence in Afghanistan to ensure that the remaining longstanding and reliable NGOs are part of the delivery teams, given that they have a good knowledge of where the urgent need is?
Meanwhile, it has to be acknowledged that the massive inputs of aid and humanitarian assistance since 2001, and earlier, have not had a significant impact on poverty reduction. There is growing awareness that humanitarian assistance alone will not support the Afghan people immediately or in the near future. Now might, therefore, be an opportune time to see what lessons can truly be learned and what kind of coherent strategy might be devised to make development assistance work. Thankfully, a new initiative, the UK Humanitarian Innovation Hub, has been set up to adapt and innovate in aid delivery. Its focus will be on working with Afghan people and other experts to provide evidence-based insights and ideas on appropriate aid provision for Afghans.
Given that G20 leaders from around the world have agreed to limited co-operation with the Taliban on aid delivery, it is in the interest of the UK and the international community to strive to get it right this time. I ask the Minister to support these kinds of initiatives by allocating funds, facilitating access and, above all, adopting the results of this collaborative approach.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for tabling this vital debate. There was UN agreement to go into Afghanistan, and we did so. There are, of course, questions about how strategic and integrated that engagement was, but there is no doubt that for a younger generation of Afghans, particularly women and girls, that intervention enhanced their life opportunities, as we have heard. We either mattered little to the Americans when they unilaterally decided to pull out, or we failed to pick up their warnings. That withdrawal has been disastrous, as we have heard. We owe so much to those who worked with us and inched the country forward. They trusted us.
Given the time available, my focus will be on those who wish to leave. I appreciated the Minister’s efforts in those desperate days as the Taliban took control of the country and the allies beat a very hasty retreat. He sought to help the individuals who were in extreme danger. There was much media coverage at the time, and in the heat of that, the Government created the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. As the media shifts its focus, the Home Office has failed to open that scheme, even though it was designed and promoted as one to assist those at extreme immediate risk. It is beyond astonishing that this scheme is not yet open.
The FCDO and the Minister’s office used to be at the forefront in trying to assist those in danger. Now, I am afraid that they block the door, even in cases I have been dealing with of the most obviously deserving candidates: parliamentarians at extreme risk. In an Answer to a Written Question that I tabled, I was told by the Home Office:
“The Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme is not yet open and remains under development.”
It also makes it clear that it is pulling up the drawbridge. Those who are already here will be counted into this scheme, even though it was promoted for those still stranded in the country. I want the Minister to tell me honestly: does he expect this scheme ever to be opened? If it is, will it simply count those who are already here, so that those who have not made it here, but, as he knows, most certainly qualify, will never stand a chance of being included? I look forward to his full response.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I shall briefly anticipate the next debate and urge the Minister to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, because the Government need to prove that global Britain means something.
I thank my noble friend Lord Roberts for this debate, timely as it is. As the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said, the crisis in Afghanistan is substantially of our—NATO and the West’s—making. What the US call the “never-ending war” actually ended several years ago in terms of NATO engagement. Thanks to NATO mentoring and air cover, the resistance to insurgency was carried on by the Afghan forces, who took heavy casualties. The announced and dated referenced withdrawal of NATO support left the Afghan forces demoralised and no longer able to resist the Taliban.
The Taliban took over the country facing minimal resistance, yet it does not have the capacity to govern a country radically different from the one it left 20 years ago. However corrupt and dysfunctional the country was under Karzai and Ghani, basic services existed and the economy functioned enough to feed and support most people, even if poorly. With no money, no administrative experience and the departure or going into hiding of many of the people who kept the country functioning, the Taliban is presiding over disintegration into chaos, hunger and deprivation, with unpredictable but potentially disastrous consequences.
As a matter of urgency, the UK should take a lead in convening the international community—including Afghan’s neighbouring countries, which are especially vulnerable—at a crisis humanitarian meeting. So, having failed to persuade the US to stop the abandonment of Afghanistan to the mercies of the Taliban, will the UK Government seek engagement with NATO allies to secure the means of getting humanitarian relief to the beleaguered people of Afghanistan whom we so shamefully abandoned?
There is no need to recognise the Taliban Government, but there is a need to engage to ensure that essentials get through; the Taliban know this, and failure will lead to its displacement by a variety of uglier and even more destabilising alternatives. Otherwise, the country will become ungovernable and an agent for all the hostile and radical forces that threaten the stability of the region and the wider world. The irony is that the cost of retrieving the situation caused by the irresponsible disengagement is likely to be many times greater in money, lives and security than if we had maintained our presence. The reality is that neighbouring countries feel threatened, the region is in chaos and we are responsible, so we must act. Will the UK Government step up and take a lead?
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for securing this important debate today. In humanitarian emergencies, fast and pragmatic action is required if the response is to be effective. There is a real concern that when it comes to our obligations in Afghanistan, speed and pragmatism are in short supply.
When we speak about working at pace to open a resettlement scheme that was promised three months ago, or about our leading role in international aid and our generosity to genuine refugees, for whose benefit is that? It sometimes seems that our aim is to reassure the domestic audience that, on the one hand, we are doing the right thing, while on the other hand we will not allow overgenerous aid commitments to detract from domestic priorities and we will do all we can to keep out illegal migrants. The international audience may be harder to convince that we are doing the right thing to address the plight of Afghans. The real worry from a humanitarian standpoint is that it is not realistic to reconcile these competing goals in the way the Government seem determined to do. Putting domestic considerations first will continue to mean too little, too late.
It was clear back in August that food production and supply chains in Afghanistan would face catastrophic disruption, with predictably calamitous consequences for Afghan families, including women and girls, who were left behind. Our obligations to Afghans who associated with us were equally clear, yet the resettlement scheme announced three months ago, in full knowledge of the obstacles, remains but a promise. The matter is urgent, even more so now with winter approaching and the uncertain window of opportunity for Afghans to leave at risk of closing soon. Will the Minister provide not only reassurance but clarity on what outcomes can be expected and when?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, like many noble Lords taking part in this debate, I have been receiving a continual flow of desperate emails from people in Afghanistan begging for help. I have been forwarding them to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to the address we have been supplied, and I thank the Minister for responding to one of those emails at 2.19 pm this afternoon. It concerned the case of a female journalist, who I will not name for obvious reasons. The response says, basically, “Here is the government website” and it lists the schemes, which I suspect is what others who are nodding at me have also received. My question for the Minister is, will a female journalist—someone in that category; I am not asking about the specific case—receive help from the British Government under any of those schemes? This journalist is in contact; the department has her email address and her details; will she receive help?
I turn to the broader issue of the many millions of people who will of course continue to be in Afghanistan. I recently spoke at a meeting held by the South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group, known as SYMAAG. Two Afghan women living in the UK also spoke at that event, and I want to bring their perspectives to your Lordships’ House. They illustrate what I acknowledge is an enormously difficult situation for the Government in trying to weigh up the problem.
This was expressed by Sahraa Karimi, an Afghan film director, who said that the Taliban is terrorising and murdering—the “only thing they know”. She pleaded that we do not do anything that would support the Taliban regime, for reasons we understand. We also heard from Dr Weeda Mehran, a senior lecturer at Exeter University, who said, as have noble Lords, that there is the most desperate humanitarian situation in Afghanistan and that we cannot allow people to be left to freeze or starve.
This is an enormously difficult situation. All I can really hope to hear from the Minister is a real grasp of its delicacy and balance, in thinking about our foreign policy. Like others here, I have just come from an event with the APPG on Drones and Modern Conflict, which talked about the damage that our actions have done around the world. We have to operate on a “first do no harm” principle. That is where our foreign policy should start, but we should also acknowledge that there is a situation in which we have to act. I hope to hear from the Minister something that reflects an understanding of that situation.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I also very warmly commend my noble friend Lord Roberts for securing this very important debate. I commend his essential humanity in what he brings to this Chamber and how he does so.
I have been struck over recent months by the stark contrast between the urgency of the withdrawal and the lack of urgency in the humanitarian response. That has been the thread running through the contributions in this debate. I commend my noble friends Lady Smith, Lady Northover and Lord Bruce for their very powerful contributions.
My noble friend Lady Northover asked very specific and deliberate questions on the settlement scheme; I hope the Minister has a very clear answer that those who are currently in the UK will not be counted towards that. When I chaired a round table last week with charities and NGOs that have staff in Afghanistan, they aired their frustration about the Home Office’s work at the moment. My noble friend Lady Northover is absolutely right. The lack of a senior official co-ordinating the cross-departmental work is obvious.
The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, indicated that the humanitarian challenges already existed and that we knew that, with Covid and drought, there would be humanitarian challenges in Afghanistan before the withdrawal. But what has happened since has been heart-rending.
My noble friend Lady Smith and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, indicated the particular impact on women. There are 700,000 pregnant women in Afghanistan at the moment. Almost all of them will now have to give birth in dangerous conditions and all of them are likely to bring up children who will have acute malnutrition. Of the 23 million people who now face insecurity, those in rural areas are particularly affected. All 34 provinces now have food insecurity alerts.
Charities and NGOs have a particular, urgent challenge at the moment. There is no agreement among the P5 or the UN on the release of finance and banking support to allow our charities to do their work. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has provided guidance and advice, but there is still no clarity as to how British charities and international organisations can work with the de facto regime. That challenge was shown in stark reality when one charity told me that it is currently spending more on lawyers to work through how it can be on the right side of the sanctions regime than it is on releasing finance to those Afghans who need it.
My noble friend Lord Bruce indicated that, if global Britain means anything, it is convening power. Will the Minister please ensure that there is clarity at the United Nations on the sanctions situation so that we can release support and allow our charities and NGOs to do the good work that is so desperately needed?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for initiating this debate. I also thank the Minister for all his help with Members of both Houses to get their constituents, families and other people out of Afghanistan. He worked tirelessly and we owe him a tribute for that. We also owe a tremendous debt of gratitude for the work, not just of the past few months but of the past 20 years, of our servicepeople, who gave Afghan women and girls a level of freedom and empowerment that they would never have previously imagined.
As we have heard in the debate, from all noble Lords, the humanitarian situation is dire. I welcome the £286 million pledge for 2021 and acknowledge the £30 million for Afghanistan’s neighbours to ensure regional stability and support for refugees. As the noble Lord has rightly said before, aid will be delivered through international organisations such as the UN, rather than directly through Taliban authorities. That is absolutely right. However, as noble Lords raised in this debate, we need to know the steps the Government are taking to ensure that these agencies can get to the parts of the country that are in most need.
I met the Governor of Punjab at the beginning of the week. He also made it clear that conditions must be placed on the Taliban, including protection for women and girls. How do we hold the Taliban to its promises? Recent evidence from human rights organisations suggests that it is not holding to them.
A real focus of this debate has been the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and why it is not open for applications. I think everyone in this Chamber heard the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, say last Thursday that the Government were “still working” on the scheme
“at pace to try to get it up and running.”—[Official Report, 25/11/21; col. 1013.]
But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, people’s lives are at stake. It is a matter of urgency. We cannot wait months and months and we need action as soon as possible. What is the cause of the delay? Victoria Atkins said that
“we are very much in the hands of our international partners”
on
“safe and legal routes through Afghanistan”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/21; col. 12.]
I hope the Minister can explain just what discussions we are having with our partners and allies in progressing this most important humanitarian support.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their insightful and valuable contributions. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for tabling this important and timely debate. We are, of course, focusing on a very sensitive but equally very important and key issue for the global community, in particular the humanitarian situation currently prevailing in Afghanistan, as well as the Afghan citizens settlement scheme.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt—who indeed has direct experience of this—in recognising and valuing, as we all do, the incredible sacrifice, bravery and service of all those from the military and the voluntary sector who have worked tirelessly over many years in Afghanistan. Those like me who had an opportunity to visit during those 20 years before the Taliban takeover will have seen what has been delivered, particularly by our servicemen and, of course, to the women of Afghanistan. Several noble Lords mentioned the women.
I assure noble Lords that in our planning, policy and programming, I certainly, for one, have not relented in my focus on the importance of Afghanistan. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, rightly drew attention to the perilous plight of people within Afghanistan—a mother to a child. I have not just seen those images; I have heard direct testimonies. Irrespective of what responsibility one holds, I assure all noble Lords that I waste no time. I seek to make no excuses. We need to help and we need to help now. The situation is acute.
It is a matter of deep regret; here I join the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, knows from our experience of working together, as does the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about those desperate times when, basically, NATO left. If up to £9 billion is being pumped into a country which is reliant on development support and assistance and that tap is suddenly switched off, of course there is going to be an impact.
I hope that with some of my words—but, more importantly, with the actions I demonstrate—I will be able to address some of the concerns, particularly the key concerns that my noble friend Lady Hodgson raised. I pay tribute to her work, particularly with Afghan women. My noble friend works directly with incredible women such as Fawzia Koofi, Hasina Saifi and Fatima Gailani. I have met them directly to continue to ensure that we retain a direct focus on the women and girls of Afghanistan.
The Government fully share the concerns expressed by noble Lords but, more than that, we fully recognise the suffering of the Afghan people. The latest figures from the World Food Programme—I recently spoke directly to David Beasley of the WFP—and the Food and Agriculture Organization suggest that over 18 million Afghans, or 42% of the population, are today suffering “crisis” or “emergency” levels of acute malnutrition. The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, also drew attention to this very issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, reminded us in his opening remarks, and as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, as winter sets in, projections point towards 23 million Afghans being in similar peril by the first quarter of next year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, reminded us, the situation for children is especially alarming. Half of all children under five—around 3.2 million—are expected to suffer from acute malnutrition by the end of this year.
In short, I do not hide behind any words or pull any punches: Afghanistan is in a crisis, and we need to act. There are many drivers of this crisis; one can cite conflict, chronic poverty, Covid and drought. Most recently, there are two other key factors at play. First, there has been a sharp contraction in the Afghan economy after the Taliban takeover, with less work available, which leads to rising food prices and a lack of essential items. Secondly, there has been a reduction in the provision of very basic services, including basic sanitation and healthcare.
First, in diplomatic terms, the UK has been at the forefront of efforts to address this. We are using our presidency of the G7 to mobilise and co-ordinate donors, as several noble Lords noted. The next step in our continued diplomacy is a special session on Afghanistan, led by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, when foreign and development Ministers meet in Liverpool on 10 and 12 December. This is a specific item on the agenda.
During the last few months, I have engaged extensively with key UN partners and continue to do so—including, last week, with Deborah Lyons, among others. Over the last few weeks and months, I have been in regular contact with Amina Mohammed, the Deputy Secretary-General of the UN; Filippo Grandi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees; Henrietta Fore at UNICEF; David Beasley at the World Food Programme; Peter Maurer at the ICRC; and Achim Steiner, director of the UNDP. This is to ensure that we are directly informed about what the barriers and issues are and how we can ensure that humanitarian support reaches Afghanistan.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, rightly pointed to the importance of cash flow. I am talking to the near neighbours of Afghanistan—particularly Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan—and each and every one highlights the issue of cash flow. As the noble Lord may be aware, we were instrumental in persuading the World Bank’s board to agree on 30 November to release $280 million from the Afghanistan reconstruction fund to support basic health services and the humanitarian response.
But we cannot just sit on that. I am currently engaging—and I hope to engage directly tomorrow with our UN ambassador, Dame Barbara Woodward, to get an update—on what further efforts can be made to unlock some of the issues, particularly the point the noble Lord raised about sanctions and the UN. There are workarounds, as we have seen in previous crises and humanitarian responses. We are encouraging the World Bank and its shareholders to repurpose the remaining $1.2 billion in the fund as soon as possible.
Nationally, the Prime Minister has committed to double our assistance for Afghanistan to £286 million for this financial year. On 31 October, he allocated £50 million for immediate humanitarian needs, and I can tell noble Lords that this has been disbursed. I have worked through this—not just on the specifics of announcements of a million here or a million there, but on where this is going, where it has got to, whether it has left our accounts, and whether it has reached the people we need to reach.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, that, through the engagement I am having, we are working on identifying the local agencies that are still operational and continue to provide support unhindered so that we can support their activities. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Hodgson mentioned the Aga Khan Development Network; it is one such agency that we are engaging with directly. This is in addition to the £30 million mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for our work with neighbouring countries as an immediate response to the challenge that they face on their borders.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that we are dealing with this with the urgency required in terms of both engagement and the parameters and challenges that exist, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, suggested. Most recently, in terms of additional support, we have disbursed £70 million of aid to Afghanistan in total, with £10 million for Afghans in the region. Specifically, we included £18 million for the Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund and £20 million for the World Food Programme. I am pleased to be able to say that the UN is now able to get larger sums of cash, notwithstanding the restrictions, into the country despite the lack of liquidity in the banking system. I assure noble Lords that funds are reaching Afghans in need and we are working intrinsically and closely with key partners on the ground. I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in paying tribute to the humanitarian aid workers who are committed to saving lives in Afghanistan in such difficult circumstances.
In addition to our aid, the Government are encouraging the region to step up its vital role in influencing the Taliban—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. I assure him that we are doing just that. Sir Simon Gass is engaging directly; I met him today and hope to talk to him in detail again tomorrow. We are also talking to the likes of India, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned specifically. In that regard, I have met the excellent Minister responsible for the resettlement, and we continue to work closely with regional partners including Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
We have been addressing the humanitarian situation closely. This has been a key part of our engagement at an operational level with the Taliban, including through the key provisions of the Security Council resolution on unhindered access, respecting human rights and, of course, providing for those Afghans who wish to leave. The Taliban has assured us but the proof will be in the pudding and the action that we demonstrably see; of course, at times, we get alarming reports of a regression in human rights. As I have said before, in my view, the Taliban has not changed. It is a regressive organisation that does not believe in human rights as any of us, or any person of faith, sees them. However, we are working with the situation that we currently face.
On the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, to be clear, there are two schemes. The ACRS is in addition to our ARAP scheme—or, to give it its full title, the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, talked specifically about the British Council; as she knows, I am live to those issues. I assure noble Lords, on the cases that come across my desk, that when a specific and general answer is given, it does register it. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I will directly follow up. Yes, there are female journalists who have already arrived in the UK, but we continue to work with them and there is more to be done in that sphere.
I will not go through what the Home Office has already said in terms of what has been published—noble Lords are fully aware of that—but I know that the Home Office is working closely with the UNHCR to finalise the scheme. As my noble friend Lady Williams, the Minister of State at the Home Office, said only last week, we are looking to announce the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis—and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, in her customary manner—asked me to be honest. I always am. Do I think that the scheme will be announced? Yes, I do.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the numbers. Of the 15,000 Afghans we have evacuated, 500 were particularly vulnerable, including Chevening scholars, journalists, human rights defenders and campaigners for women. Some of those people will form part of the first 5,000 who we will settle under the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme but I look forward to working directly with noble Lords alongside my colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that all routes are fully explained and that we continue to work to relieve the pressure on vulnerable Afghans within Afghanistan, as well as support those who have already arrived. I can assure noble Lords that we are working across government to ensure that those priorities are fully realised and actioned.
This is an ongoing chapter. We cannot be in any way immune from what we saw in August. Yes, headlines move on but if our commitment over the past 20 years is to mean anything to Afghanistan, it means that we will remain vigilant and focused. I assure noble Lords that, as the Minister responsible for the Afghanistan brief, I continue to engage directly to ensure that, first, the humanitarian support urgently reaches the people it needs to and, secondly, that more support will continue to be released. I will share with noble Lords the details, as I have done today, in further briefings that I will be giving on specific support that we are giving within country. I, like other noble Lords, fully hope that the ACRS scheme is up and running so that we can continue to provide the support needed, both through the ARAP scheme and the ACRS to the vulnerable Afghans who wish to leave.
Finally, I should say, as is often said—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his kind words in my direction—that my thanks go to all noble Lords because their continued vigilance, action, lobbying and bringing these cases forward makes sure that the Government also remain accountable to the commitments that they have given.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House takes note of the detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the case for further action by Her Majesty’s Government to secure her release.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, for five and a half years, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been held in Iran, often in isolation and separated from her baby daughter, robbing her of motherhood and Gabriella of her childhood. Like many noble Lords, I visited Richard Ratcliffe, her husband, outside the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office during his recent hunger strike. No one can fail to admire his determination and incredible resolve in his campaign to seek the release of his wife.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to be at the Magnitsky awards in Westminster Central Hall when I saw that same resolve in a young person. All those present witnessed the deeply moving part of the ceremony when Nazanin’s daughter Gabriella accepted the award for Courage Under Fire on behalf of her mother. Gabriella was just 22 months old when her mother, a project co-ordinator for the Thomson Reuters Foundation was arrested in April 2016 at Tehran Airport, just as they were travelling back to the UK. Iran claimed that she was a spy and, in September 2016, she was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
In March 2019, the then Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, announced that the UK Government were giving Nazanin diplomatic protection. At the time, the Government said that this
“represents formal recognition by the British Government that her treatment fails to meet Iran’s obligations under international law and elevates it to a formal State to State issue.”
Nazanin is the first British national to be granted diplomatic protection since 1951, so can the Minister tell us how the Government have treated her case differently from other consular cases? Under Theresa May’s premiership, at least six trips were undertaken by five different Ministers to solve Nazanin’s case. Why has no Minister been sent to Iran for this purpose under Boris Johnson’s premiership, despite the assertion of diplomatic protection? Nazanin’s status of diplomatic protection means that her ongoing torture is an injury to the United Kingdom itself. What are the Government doing to exercise diplomatic protection for Nazanin and to challenge the fact that she has been tortured?
On 17 March 2020, Nazanin was released from prison under house arrest and allowed to stay at her parents’ home in Tehran. This was partly because of coronavirus. The conditions of her house arrest included wearing an ankle tag and remaining within 300 metres of her parents’ home. In September 2020, it was announced that Nazanin was facing a new charge. A new trial commenced in November 2020, but it was adjourned. Nazanin’s original sentence ended in March 2021. She had her ankle tag removed. However, a week later, she had to attend court for a hearing on a new charge against her, relating to her attendance at a demonstration outside the Iranian embassy in London 12 years ago. She was sentenced to a further year in prison, to be followed by a one-year travel ban. In October 2021, she lost her appeal against this sentence. She now faces the prospect of being returned to prison at any time and of not seeing her husband and daughter until 2023.
It is now well over 2,000 days since Nazanin was first detained. This is an unimaginable ordeal for her and her family. Recent talks between the Government and the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister did not result in any progress. Nor has there been progress in the cases of other British nationals, including Anoosheh Ashoori and Morad Tahbaz. Both men are not in good health. Like Nazanin, they are being arbitrarily detained on spurious, fabricated charges. Anoosheh Ashoori has not been allowed out of prison. His family applied for diplomatic protection for him in April 2021. What consideration has been given to this request? What was the outcome? Morad Tahbaz was one of eight conservationists held by the Iranian authorities. Amnesty International has said that there was evidence that those eight had been tortured to obtain false confessions.
During the last debate on the detention of British nationals, noble Lords across the House raised the debt of £400 million which Britain owes Iran. The money was paid by Iran to the United Kingdom more than 40 years ago for 1,500 Chieftain tanks, which were never delivered. The Government have said that bank transfer transactions are not possible because of restrictions but, as we all know, if the Government had the will to settle the debt, one way or another, the payment would be made.
No one is suggesting that our Government should pay any sort of ransom. If the money is owed—and there is no question but that that is the case—the debt should be settled. When the Prime Minister was Foreign Secretary, he made a promise to Richard Ratcliffe that the debt would be paid. Significantly, in 2014, the current Defence Secretary described the unpaid debt as “a sorry story”. He said that the whole issue had been,
“marred by double dealing and obfuscation.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/14; col. 103WH.]
More recently, a number of distinguished former Foreign Secretaries—Conservative and Labour—have said that the debt should be paid. That is also the view of many international and legal commentators and it is the view of the Opposition as well. Jeremy Hunt, a former Foreign Secretary, said that it was not about paying a ransom; it was about the UK’s credibility and doing what is right.
In our last debate on this subject on 15 November 2021, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, insisted that
“it is not helpful in any way to connect wider bilateral issues with those arbitrarily detained in Iran.”—[Official Report, 15/11/21; col. 16.]
Does the Minister acknowledge that Nazanin and her family have been told on numerous occasions that payment of the £400 million IMS debt is key to her release? I hope he will respond to this.
On numerous occasions, we have been told by the Government, including the Minister, that they are doing their best, but, for more than five years, British Governments have tried and failed to secure the release of Nazanin and the other British nationals. If there was a government strategy during this time, it has clearly failed. Richard Ratcliffe puts it in a slightly different way, describing the Government’s policy as a “policy of waiting”. Now is surely the time to be vigorous and determined. Nazanin, Anoosheh Ashoori, Morad Tahbaz and all the British nationals—that is what they are—need to be brought back home. The time for discreet pressure and cautious words is long past.
I suspect that the question that is in the minds of most noble Lords today is: how is it that, in recent years, countries such as the United States, Australia, France and Germany have all successfully negotiated the release of their citizens arbitrarily detained in Iran? Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us what those countries have been doing right and what we have been doing wrong. All noble Lords want to hear from the Minister today that the Government have a strategy and a plan of action for bringing our people home.
I conclude with questions on what actions might be part of that plan. How will the Government use the political will behind the Canada-led Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations, which they joined in February this year, to challenge Iran’s systematic hostage-taking? Will the Government acknowledge that Nazanin and other British nationals arbitrarily detained in Iran, including Anoosheh Ashoori, are hostages in accordance with the Taking of Hostages Act 1982? Will the Government commit to finding international solutions to Iran’s systematic hostage-taking at the upcoming democracy summit, initiated by President Biden, on 9 and 10 December?
The Free Nazanin campaign submitted an evidence file identifying 10 perpetrators of Iran’s hostage-taking, requesting that they be subjected to asset freezes and travel bans, using the Magnitsky sanctions. I know how the Minister will reply: he will resist any questions on planned designations. But I hope today he will confirm that Magnitsky sanctions will form part of the plan of action.
I look forward to hearing not only the Minister’s response but the contributions of all noble Lords across the House this afternoon. In particular, I welcome the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, and I look forward to hearing her contribution. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I express gratitude to my noble friend Lord Collins for initiating the debate and laying out the arguments so clearly. Really, all we need is the Minister’s response to his speech, but the rest of us are here in support. I was talking to a Member of this House who has spoken on this subject on previous occasions but said that he was not disposed to speak again today. I said that I wanted to speak again today to show support for Richard Ratcliffe and Nazanin. We need to show that support.
When we had our debate on this recently, I said to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that we would keep on going—what other choice do we have? We feel that this is an abuse of human rights and the rights of the family, and that what has happened to Nazanin is totally illegal. We will just keep going. If that sounds repetitive, it is, because we have no other choice—what else can we do? If the Minister could suggest some other course of action to us, we would take it.
I will repeat one or two of the questions that my noble friend put in his opening speech. How is it that the United States has got its nationals released, as have Australia, France and Germany? What have they done that we cannot? What have they conceded? Have they done something that is wrong in principle? They have managed to get their nationals out; surely to goodness we should be looking at what they have done and at why we cannot do the same.
Many of us went to see Richard Ratcliffe when he was on hunger strike outside the Foreign Office. He is a brave man; he is committed; he is principled; he understands the issues—he has a better understanding of the politics of what is going on than most of us, I dare say. His level of commitment and faith that he will eventually get his wife back here is evident. It takes a lot of tenacity for an individual to keep going like that. He stayed on hunger strike a long time; he was very hungry and cold. Someone said he should stop, for the sake of his wife and daughter, because his health could be in danger. Some of his family are doctors and said the same thing, so I am glad that he stopped. But what an effort of principle it was on his part. Perhaps some of us should have joined him on his hunger strike—although that may have been asking too much of parliamentary colleagues. Richard certainly set an example of tenacity of purpose.
Jeremy Hunt, as Foreign Secretary, and the Defence Secretary both said that the money that we owed was not ransom, and an international court supported that. I do not understand two of the comments made by Ministers in earlier debates: that the issue of the money was complicated and that raising it was unhelpful. Will the Minister say what is meant by “complicated” and “unhelpful”? It is a straightforward commitment. The Prime Minister, when he was Foreign Secretary, said that we owed the money; everyone else says that we owe the money. What is unhelpful about saying that we as a country have a debt and we pay our debts? That is our principle. We support the rule of law. It is precisely because the Iranians are not supporting the rule of law that this terrible situation has arisen, and those of the other British nationals held there.
What, therefore, is complicated and unhelpful about raising this issue? If the £400 million is not a ransom, and the present Prime Minister promised that the debt would be paid, what is happening? Why cannot that debt be paid? Everyone who was at the hunger strike supporting Richard asked why the ransom was not being paid. Nobody can understand it. Somewhere in the depths of the Foreign Office there may be some explanation of it, but we have not heard it at all.
The Government used the status of diplomatic protection to try to give Nazanin some help. I wonder how we have used that diplomatic protection. When she was back in court recently and got a further sentence, the British Embassy, as I understand it, did not go to the court to support her. On another recent occasion, officials from the German Embassy went to the court. They were not allowed in to the trial of one of their nationals but they had a chance to talk to the judge—that surely was at least something. Why is our embassy not willing to go there and be supportive? When her daughter, Gabriella, sent presents, no embassy official delivered them—an embassy driver took them to where she was under house arrest. I do not understand why we are being so shabby. Why are we not doing more? Why are we not up front in our support for this wronged woman who has been treated so appallingly badly?
In February, I think, Canada led an initiative, which we backed, against the arbitrary detention of foreign nationals. What are our Government doing about that? If ever there was a case of arbitrary detention of foreign nationals, it is the British nationals in Iran, including Nazanin. Did not Dominic Raab, when he was Foreign Secretary, acknowledge that she was being tortured—that the way in which she was being detained was tantamount to torture? Torture is surely one of the worst things. Every international convention is against torture; as a Government we are totally against it. It is appalling and abhorrent. Why are we not saying more about that?
Lastly, in terms of action, my noble friend talked about Magnitsky sanctions. We have to do something. If the Government are not willing to act, we have to do something, and Magnitsky sanctions at least offer some way forward.
May I put a question to the Minister that I have asked him before? I believe that there is something else going on. I do not know what it is but there is some reason, in the depths of the Foreign Office, why we cannot move and pay the money. There is something holding us back. We cannot be afraid of US sanctions, because the Americans have breached their own sanctions, so what are we afraid of? What are we apprehensive about? How will our status in the world be undermined? Surely to goodness, we are entitled to know what the argument is. The Minister can play a very dead bat; he has a wide respect in the House for the person he is, and I know he is trying to be helpful. I do not blame him for this, but he is the only person we can shout at here, so I am shouting at him. There is some reason why this is not moving forward, and I would dearly like to know what it is. One day, in 30 years’ time, when the books are open, we will find out, but we would like to know now why this is not happening. I urge the Government to move quickly for the sake of a decent woman, a little girl and a husband who has been battling for her release.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I was introduced to the House barely a month ago, having recently taken up my post as Bishop of Chelmsford, that vast and wonderful diocese that covers the whole of Essex and east London. It is a privilege to serve this diocese, which is complex, diverse and full of opportunities and challenges. Today, I thank everyone here who has offered me the warmest of welcomes. I am immensely grateful, in particular, for the help and support that I have received from staff and officials.
I have a deep and personal interest in the subject of this debate. Not only have I met Richard Ratcliffe and followed the story of Nazanin over the years, but I myself originally come from Iran. Born and brought up there, I left as a teenager during the Islamic Revolution, following difficult and traumatic circumstances. I was born into a Christian household, my father having been a convert from Islam to Christianity, in a small village in the centre of Iran. We were part of the tiny Anglican Church in Iran, which, when I was growing up in the 1970s, was made up primarily of converts and second- and third-generation Christians.
Our small community was hit hard when the revolution ushered in a period of unrest and chaos, and the church experienced a season of intense persecution. Properties were confiscated, financial assets were frozen and one of our clergy was murdered in his study. My father, who was by then bishop of the church, was briefly imprisoned before an attack on his life, which he survived but in which my mother was injured. In May 1980, my 24 year-old brother had his car ambushed on his way home from work. Two men got in next to him, and after a brief conversation witnessed by passers-by, he was shot in the head and died instantly. No arrests were ever made, no court case was followed and no explanation was offered for his murder. It was soon after this that I found myself in this country, originally with refugee status and eventually as a British citizen.
I have experienced first-hand the sting of injustice—injustice born of being caught up in events that are bigger than we are and in the face of which we are powerless. I remember well the chilling experience of a hand hovering over my father’s as he went to pick up the phone while our home was being raided by the authorities. It was a hand that prevented him calling for assistance as he helplessly watched the house being ransacked and his belongings destroyed. None of this, however, has left me bitter or with ill will towards my homeland or my countryfolk—far from it. I retain a deep love for Iran and her people, and a desire to work for reconciliation with those of other faiths and across all the divides that we create as human beings.
All of this brings me to today’s debate and to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, her husband Richard, and their daughter and wider family. Resolving this situation, this great injustice, to reunite a family who are innocent pawns in power struggles that have nothing to do with them requires the best of both civilisations involved—Persian and British. Iran is a land with a rich culture. It has produced some of the greatest poets, architects, artists and scientists over its long and distinguished history. At the time of King Cyrus the Great, the Persian Empire arguably gave birth to the notion of religious tolerance. Cyrus was King of Persia in the sixth century BCE. Having conquered Babylon and liberated the Jews from captivity, he decreed that the Temple in Jerusalem be rebuilt, so that any Jews choosing to return could worship freely. Cyrus modelled a way for people of difference to live alongside one another in peace, and the Cyrus cylinder or charter still stands today as a testament to this ideal in the British Museum.
British civilisation is also built on principles of compassion, tolerance and justice. These are thoroughly British values from which I and many other refugees, immigrants and asylum seekers have benefited over the years. But, at their heart, compassion, justice and tolerance are more than words. To have their fullest meaning, they must be lived—demonstrated in deed as well as word. In the case of Nazanin, we must see these principles enacted now. We need meaningful action, which demands that both countries involved draw on the best of their traditions.
The British Government have acknowledged that this country owes a debt to Iran that is now 40 years overdue. As has already been said, this is not ransom money; it is a long-standing obligation. The payment of this debt would demonstrate something crucial about how Britain chooses to play her part in the world, with integrity and decency, honesty and trust- worthiness. If Britain fulfils her obligations, Iran too must act from the best of her traditions, which exemplify beauty, honour, truth and respect.
Finally, Nazanin and other British-Persian dual nationals, among them Anoosheh Ashoori and Morad Tahbaz, are embroiled in a great injustice not of their own making, in the face of which they are utterly powerless. There are, however, powers at play that can effect change and right this terrible wrong. I urge the Minister to use what authority he has to help unlock this intractable situation by paying the debt owed, so that we
“let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on her excellent maiden speech and to welcome her to this House. She brings an extraordinary array of talents, including, I am pleased to see, academic and musical distinction, and a unique set of experiences as a member of a persecuted church in Iran. We heard how she suffered huge family trauma at the time of the Iranian revolution, arrived in the UK as a refugee and then built a life of service in the Church here. As I am sure noble Lords agree, we will learn a lot from her contributions, and it is a privilege to follow her in today’s debate.
I start by paying tribute to Nazanin’s husband Richard. I have never met Richard, but I have learned a lot about tenacity, courage, honesty and devotion from watching him fight for the release of his wife—his daughter Gabriella’s mum. I send my very best wishes, as I am sure other noble Lords do, to Richard and Gabriella today.
I want to ask the Minister about one issue, which is that raised by all former speakers, of the debt of approximately £400 million. I realise this is sensitive, given the other things going on, but we know that this debt stems from a weapons deal with the Shah of Iran in the late 1970s, for which Iran paid £600 million and received only a fraction of the vehicles ordered. The culture of secrecy around this issue is extraordinary. To some extent, it is understandable but, beyond that, it is extraordinary.
We do know a number of things about this, however. First, the FCDO has been told on numerous occasions by Iran that the settlement of this debt is vital for securing the release of Nazanin. Secondly, in the course of 20 years of arbitration in the Hague, the UK lost both a claim against it by Iran for payment and its own counterclaim launched in 1996. It also lost a final appeal against these rulings in 2009. This debt is therefore clearly owed by us to Iran, and the law requires it to be paid, whatever our private views on the issue might be. Thirdly, as my noble friend Lord Collins eloquently set out, we know of many former Foreign Secretaries’ views, and we know in particular that Jeremy Hunt came to the view that this money was not an illegitimate demand or an attempt at extortion but an unpaid debt. Fourthly, we know that in September 2020, the UK Defence Minister Ben Wallace wrote to Richard Ratcliffe to say that the Government officially acknowledge that this is a debt that must be paid.
This is what we know. Beyond this, the Government tell us—and, more importantly, have told Richard Ratcliffe and his family and supporters—precious little. So, my main question for the Minister is: can he explain give us a very simple reason why this debt has not been paid? Jeremy Hunt said recently that the reason for holding back payment is now about practicalities, not principle. Can the Minister confirm that is true? If it is because of practicalities, could he explain which practicalities are most relevant? Is it because the Iranian Government were made a sanctioned entity in 2008 under EU law, for example? Though, of course, since Brexit, we have famously taken back control of our own sanctions policy. Irrespective of that, since 2008, a UK court has ruled that the debt should be paid, and Iran has asked for it to be repaid via the central bank of Iran, which is not a sanctioned entity. I understand that the UK has never formally responded to that request; can the Minister say why? Perhaps the practicality is that any UK bank involved in any financial transfer would be subject to US Treasury secondary sanctions, which would be a legitimately serious obstacle. Is that the practicality blocking resolution?
Or is it a more straightforward explanation—that UK Ministers just cannot abide the idea of handing over such a substantial sum to an Iranian Government, given their appalling domestic human rights records, their involvement in atrocities abroad and the complexity of issues around the JCPOA, for example? As my noble friends Lord Collins and Lord Dubs said, other countries have successfully negotiated release. Similarly, various imaginative ideas have been proposed for circumventing some of the practical problems in the repayment of our debt—paying the debt in kind through medicines, for example, or insisting on explicit Iranian undertaking to use the money for certain agreed purposes. The Government have not engaged—or publicly acknowledged that they are privately engaged—with these ideas. Why not?
One response to this may be that we should not discuss this at all, as it will disturb the sensitivities around negotiations and disrupt the plan. But the problem is that those closest to this issue, the family and supporters of Nazanin, no longer believe there is any plan at all. That is the most concerning thing—that after so much unjustified suffering, the family of Nazanin not only do not know what the strategy is to end her detention but do not believe that there is anything resembling one. That is why Richard Ratcliffe said during his recent hunger strike of the current Government’s approach to his wife’s release:
“The policy is one of managed waiting, waiting for Iran to do the right thing, for a diplomatic solution. There is no strategy to get Naz home, which I said very bluntly to Liz Truss last week. That’s why I’m camping on the street, because after five and a half years that’s really clear.”
For the sake of Nazanin and her husband and daughter, more than any of us, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide at least some clarity about this issue today.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what a beautiful, beautiful, moving contribution that was from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. It is perhaps the finest I have heard in my 20 years as Member of the House.
Having read the 16 November Commons debate and the procedural opinion of the Commons authorities on sub judice, I have to say, surely, whether or not the High Court upholds, IMS’s liability to repay MODSAF should have no bearing whatever on what is essentially a moral argument—one of right or wrong. My comments do not relate to the legal position or the concern of the Commons authorities—only the moral argument.
What is obvious is that in recent months the view of the Commons has become clear and is well documented in Hansard. I cannot understand why the Commons authorities intervened in the way they did. No doubt, the Iranian embassy in London will be closely following events in Parliament. It will now, as we speak, be on live feed, listening to this debate. It will evaluate statements made by Ministers, including our Prime Minister, whose contribution to this debate has been less than helpful.
Let us be in no doubt that the louder the calls for a settlement, the more likely it is that the Iranians will hold out in the belief that a financial settlement is likely to come sooner rather than later. That is the Catch-22 position we are now in. Transparency will inevitably have its price. The louder Parliament shouts, the more resolute they will become. When caught in the headlamps of such a dilemma and in such contradictions, it is best to turn to the principle. To me, it is clear: we owe them money. The so-called niceties, norms, modalities and complexities of international diplomacy are obstacles, but they should be set aside. We have all been brought up to pay our debts, and so should the state. Arguments over the background to the debt are a hindrance, only exacerbating a position that is increasingly indefensible. We owe the money. It is their money. It is not our money. The response of the Government lacks all credibility. I say: pay up, and pay up now.
Perhaps I may say something more controversial. We should ignore our kith and kin in America who, at the moment, are suffering a worldwide-role identity crisis. Trump is a symptom of that. We need to begin a process of rapprochement with Iran and others. We need to rethink our approach to relationships with Islamic states and if, as we heard in the previous debate, we can talk to the Taliban, I am sure we can talk to the Iranians. As the world moves on from oil to renewables, the relationship between oil-dependent Islamic states and the advanced nations, particularly in the West, will change. It will be more problematic. Today’s differences of opinion could turn very ugly indeed, and therefore we should act with very great care.
Finally, the Minister today is bound by his brief and, despite his reputation for frankness, cannot say what he might believe, and I suspect he agrees far more with us than with the brief he has been given. The much respected mantra “We recognise the legal duty to repay the debt and will explore the legal options for doing so”, which we see repeated in all sorts of documents and speeches, is simply not good enough. I hope that the powers that stand behind the Minister are listening to this debate. They should think again and pay up. Parliament says pay up. We should pay up.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Lab)
My Lords, the facts about the arrest of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in April 2016 and her subsequent imprisonment are well known to this House and have been expertly and movingly explained and expounded on by my noble friend Lord Collins and other participants in this debate, so suffice it to say her ordeal is continuing. Her husband, as he began his recent hunger strike outside the Foreign Office, said,
“The reason I’m camped here is that Nazanin has been held for five and a half years, the British Government has not done nearly enough and I have lost faith in their approach.”
Who can blame him for that? Certainly not the group of parliamentarians, including me, from both Houses and all parties who visited him during his hunger strike to show support. It is astonishing that our superb, experienced Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service and, indeed, HMG, have seemed so useless and clumsily inept in this case. I am not sure whether I am more angry or ashamed. In fact, I am probably both about what has happened here.
It has been clear from the start that this and other similar actions from Iran are linked to settlement of the payment of the debt owed by Britain to Iran—a debt confirmed in international arbitration and now accepted as valid by Her Majesty’s Government. Yes, it is reprehensible of Iran to use human beings as hostages and, yes, there are sanctions about transferring money to Iran, not least from the United States. However, the fact is that, although the UK has a correct policy not to pay ransom for kidnapped hostages, this is not a ransom, as other participants have said; it is an acknowledged legal debt to be repaid. As for US sanctions, in May 2016, President Obama paid a similar debt owed by the United States. This was paid in cash and delivered by plane, and therefore did not violate US sanctions in paying the debt back to Iran.
The Government need to get their act together and return Nazanin home to her husband and child, and to the country of which she is a citizen, where she has chosen to live, and whose Government have been letting her down so very badly.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury for bringing forward this opportunity to debate this scandal. He has been dogged in his determination in relation to Nazanin’s case and I know that all noble Lords intend to follow his lead.
I also add to the enormous congratulations to the right reverend Prelate that we have heard already. I have not been around as long as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, but that was certainly the most powerful maiden speech that I have heard or read in either House of Parliament in an adult life of paying close attention to such things.
I declare an interest as a member of 39 Essex Chambers, a status which I have the privilege of sharing with Edwin Glasgow QC, who, as noble Lords will appreciate, wrote a piece in the Times today. I associate myself with that “Thunderer” article and wish to repeat and expand on some of it. This is an occasion on which I will not apologise for an element of repetition because, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, we need keep repeating these arguments until the Government perform what is a fundamental duty of any Government.
It has been said, and let us say again, that this is not a transactional matter. We should pay our debts, which are clearly owing in law. These are debts that have been found owing by our own courts and international tribunals, and they are accepted by Her Majesty’s Government. However, it is not a transactional matter not to pay your debts and not to abide by the rule of law; that will inevitably toxify your relations with the country that feels wronged and make it far less possible to suggest that that country, whoever it is, also upholds international norms. The debt must be paid; every moment it is not, we continue to toxify relations when we should be offering a moral lead, as suggested by the right reverend Prelate, and obeying the rule of law.
That is all that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family have ever asked of their Government. It is a pretty modest request from not just a citizen but one who is supposed to have diplomatic protection. What is diplomatic protection from Her Majesty’s Government worth these days? That is a valid question for any British citizen to ask of the present Government.
We have heard that the Government have hidden behind EU sanctions despite Brexit, and even though they took the post-Brexit opportunity effectively to reinstate the nature of those sanctions. That is an excuse. My noble friend spoke of obfuscation and double-dealing in relation to words that the Government have used, such as “complicated” and “unhelpful”. Those of us on this and other sides of the House know what we believe to be unhelpful in relation to this poor woman’s case.
The United States has been mentioned, in particular by some of my noble friends, but the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, unequivocally confirmed on our much-loved BBC that this is a sovereign decision for the United Kingdom. As my noble friend said a few moments ago, the United States has discharged its own similar debt to Iran.
It is not a pleasant thing to have to say, but the Prime Minister also owes a personal debt of honour in this case. We all know about the gaffe that he made when he was the Foreign Secretary—a pretty tragic gaffe in relation to this poor woman’s case, but he made it. I suggest that that makes this a more personal debt of honour still. We know that he has promised that the debt should be paid. So a specific debt of honour is owed by this Government and this Prime Minister. There is also a wider duty to protect our nationals. I do not want to hear about dual nationality; we know where the Government stand on matters of that kind. This woman is a British national and has diplomatic protection, so the Government must pay their debt to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the Government of Iran. They must uphold the international rule of law.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too start by paying tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for her maiden speech. I appreciate her terrible loss. I was a student at Oxford with her brother, Bahram. I remember a Sunday lunch when we all gathered to wish him well before he went back to Iran after the revolution. We said that he must be careful, but he dismissed us. I can see him now. He said that it was his home and he would be fine. Soon after, we heard of his awful killing. I was astonished as the right reverend Prelate gave the most forgiving, humane speech, paying such tribute to her country of birth despite the pain that she has suffered. I also thank her for her support for Nazanin and her family.
How many times have we raised Nazanin’s case? How much more agony will this poor family, and those of the other British hostages in Iran, need to suffer? It tugs at me that Nazanin and her family have not only been put through hell; I also think of the long-term effect on them. I know that my own children could not be more important to me, and I know that the Minister feels the same about his. Nazanin will suffer because of the potential effect on Gabriella and all that both have lost, as she has grown from babyhood to going to primary school. There is also the fact that Gabriella may be an only child, taking from Nazanin and Richard the possibility that they might have wanted their family to grow.
I hope that we are not going backwards here. I note that, when Richard was bravely and desperately on hunger strike, few Tories came to visit him, with the notable exception of Jeremy Hunt. Of course it is the Iranians, or at least the Revolutionary Guard, who must be held to account here, but perhaps the Minister can take back to his colleagues that Nazanin’s case is cutting through to the public more than they might think. I was knocking up, as you do if you are a Lib Dem on election days, in the by-election in Amersham. A local builder said to me that he was about to vote for us because—this really surprised me—“that poor lady would not still be in prison in Iran” had the then Foreign Secretary not said what he did. This builder did not therefore rate him as Prime Minister.
Yet I pick up no real concern from that Prime Minister or the new Foreign Secretary—or the Middle East Minister, for that matter, unlike some of his predecessors. As others have noted, during Theresa May’s time, there were at least six visits to Iran by five different Ministers to try to resolve Nazanin’s case. Why has no Minister gone to Iran for this purpose under this Government? Despite Covid, Ministers have travelled, as the Minister recognises.
Why, therefore, are the Government failing to use the diplomatic protection granted to Nazanin? Do they recognise the dangers in undermining the credibility of such protections if we fail to follow through? Why do the Government refer to Nazanin and the other British hostages in Iran as “dual nationals” rather than “British citizens”, as other have mentioned? Is that to distance themselves? I am now a dual national of the United Kingdom and Ireland, which I sought, courtesy of my grandmother, post Brexit, so that I could still be an EU citizen. I am sure I am not the only dual citizen in your Lordships’ House. Am I, too, to be abandoned, if in difficulties somewhere around the world?
As we know, Nazanin has repeatedly been told by the Iranians that she is being held as collateral for the UK government debt to Iran, which the UK recognises and the courts have confirmed. I echo others’ questions on this: what exactly are the sanctions issues or legal problems preventing the Government settling this debt? Are we currying favour with the Americans? Have we delayed action at their request for geopolitical reasons?
Do the Government recognise Nazanin as a hostage under the terms of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982? Clearly, being held as a political hostage in this way is absolutely unacceptable, and the Iranian Government should be called out on that. But, in February 2021, as we have heard, the UK backed a Canada-led initiative against such states’ hostage-taking, so how will we now act on it? To echo the noble Lord, Lord Collins: will the Government consider Magnitsky sanctions against those who have already been identified as perpetrators of hostage-taking?
I look forward to the Minister’s response, but, even more than that, I look forward to the Government taking the urgent action that we know has the greatest potential to secure her immediate release, for her sake and for her family.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I join all those who have congratulated the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on a tremendous maiden speech, which moved everyone in the Chamber. We all look forward to her many future contributions, and I congratulate her.
Nazanin has been a prisoner of the Iranian regime for over five long years. Depressingly, there seems to be no end in sight. So far, successive Foreign Secretaries have failed in their efforts to secure her release, with one of them—the present Prime Minister—making a delicate situation rather worse by wrongly describing Nazanin as a journalist and apparently confirming one of the Iranian regime’s trumped-up charges. That moment of British carelessness is of course no excuse for the Iranian regime’s treatment of Nazanin, but it has been used to justify that treatment in the eyes of supporters of the Iranian regime, and it was a costly error.
As many others have said in this debate, another error has been the continued delay in paying Iran our debt of £400 million for the undelivered tanks. I am under no illusions about the nature of the Iranian Government, who remain very hostile to the West in a number of ways. They are under severe sanction for, inter alia, their alleged actions in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but there is no question that we owe Iran the money, and we should urgently find a way to pay up, as others have done and as President Obama did in 2016, as others have said. We cannot keep hiding behind the need to observe sanctions, thereby conceding the moral high ground to Iran.
I am not naive; I can see why many would not like to provide a large amount of money to this Iranian regime. Nor do I assume that if we paid our debt, the Iranian regime would necessarily release Nazanin and the other UK nationals who are arbitrarily detained. The regime is always ready to invent some new pretext or other to extend the detentions, but while we do not pay our debt, we continue to find it particularly difficult to avoid being labelled by Iran and its allies as feckless. To pay up would not be responding to a ransom demand, as others have said; it would be discharging an obligation.
The UK Government have insisted that there is no link between Nazanin’s detention and the debt. It is certainly the case that if we were to discharge our debt and negotiate with Iran, there could be no guarantees about Nazanin and the other British hostages being released, but not paying the debt is a clear barrier, and other western nations have settled their debts with Tehran and secured the release of citizens. Linkages and trade-offs, by the way, will be central to the success or otherwise of the resumed talks in Austria at the moment between Iran and the western powers, including the UK, on nuclear non-proliferation issues. The Iranians are not strangers to these diplomatic processes, and every opportunity should be taken to negotiate a way forward for Nazanin and the others. So, I join just about everybody who has spoken today to ask the Minister: when will this debt be cleared? What diplomatic processes are under way to negotiate for Nazanin and others who want and deserve a long- overdue release?
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for, as other noble Lords have said, a remarkable and moving maiden speech—a quite extraordinary speech. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said, it was probably the best speech any of us has heard for a very long time. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for securing this important debate. He was completely right to say that it is not possible to imagine how badly Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has suffered at the hands of the Iranian dictatorship: kidnapped, imprisoned and denied contact with her family, having done nothing wrong whatever.
It is not possible, either, to imagine the impact this is having on her family. I too was at the Magnitsky awards to see Gabriella receive the Courage Under Fire award on behalf of her mother. I have met her husband on several occasions, in his recent hunger strike outside the Foreign Office and in the previous one outside the Iranian embassy. I pay tribute to him for everything he has done to keep the regime’s treatment of his wife in the public eye and demand that this appalling, awful situation is resolved. I think responsibility for this has to be laid squarely with the Iranian dictatorship, which is not a legitimate, democratic Government elected freely by the Iranian people; it is a brutal, despotic dictatorship that bans opponents, steals elections, executes opponents in Iran and targets them abroad, denies women basic freedoms, kills people for having sex outside marriage and hangs gay men from cranes. This is not a democracy run by reasonable people with whom you can negotiate; it is a brutal regime, as we have heard, that kidnaps citizens of other countries—not just our citizens but citizens from several nations.
It is clearly not correct, in that context, to argue that this is the fault of British Governments over the last 40 years who have not been able to resolve this issue about the defence contract. We should think about what this regime would do with £400 million. It would not be used to help ordinary citizens in Iran, to strengthen the economy, to provide jobs or to improve public services. The regime is not in the least bit interested in the conditions of ordinary Iranians; it does not, after all, allow them the opportunity to vote it out of office. Even with its economy on its knees and people in Iran suffering, it spends billions causing carnage in Iraq and Syria, bankrolling terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon, where it has created chaos and destroyed the economy in that country as well, creating nuclear weapons which threaten to destroy Israel and creating an arms race across the Middle East. That, I am afraid, is what the £400 million would be used for.
I would like to ask the Minister some specific questions. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, will the Government first acknowledge that Nazanin and the other British nationals arbitrarily detained in Iran are hostages in accordance with the Taking of Hostages Act 1982? Will they commit to finding international solutions to Iran’s systematic hostage taking at the upcoming democracy summit being hosted by the US this month?
Ministers have visited Iran, as we have heard, to try to solve this case in the past. Can the Minister assure the House that that will be happening in future? Will Ministers be visiting Iran to support her and press her case, especially as she has been given diplomatic protection?
What have the Government done with the evidence they received that Nazanin’s treatment amounted to torture, and why have they not raised the torture of Nazanin and other foreign nationals in Iran at the United Nations? Are the Government concerned that paying the regime this money could result in it kidnapping more citizens from other countries in future?
I agree with the noble Lord who said that there must be a plan. I am not asking for discreet pressure or cautious words; I want the Government to increase pressure on the regime to release Nazanin. For example, what assessment have the Government made of the case for much tougher sanctions on the regime, its Ministers and its officials? What assessment have they made for imposing Magnitsky sanctions on the people identified as being involved in the arrest and detention of British citizens? What assessment have they made of the case for the complete proscription of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard—the IRGC—which is responsible for much of the brutal rule of the poor citizens of Iran and the carnage this regime creates across the region more broadly?
Finally, given that other noble Lords have raised the separate issue of the JCPOA negotiations in Vienna, I conclude by urging the Government to adopt a robust approach in these negotiations so that everything possible can be done to prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, when the history of this tragic and sad case comes to be written, great credit will be due to my noble friend Lord Collins for having instigated today’s debate which, if nothing else, is about keeping up the pressure which needs to be kept up after so many years. We should all be very grateful to my noble friend for doing that.
I turn to the right reverend Prelate’s maiden speech. It was a very moving personal story, and you could see the reaction of the House to it. It falls to me to congratulate her on her maiden speech, as it did earlier today to congratulate her colleague, who has now left his place, on his maiden speech. I made my maiden speech only seven weeks ago today and had the occasion on a subsequent day to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter on his maiden speech, so I have now reached three maiden speeches. I do not know if there are any more Bishops due into the House —someone ought to let me know.
Returning to this case, I, like other noble Lords, walked over to see Richard Ratcliffe when he was on hunger strike outside the FCDO. I echo what was said by my noble friend. It was shameful to see a hunger strike outside our own Foreign Office. I had never met him before. He looked tired, wan, cold and hungry. I did not keep him long. I told him that I had been invited over by my noble friend Lord Dubs and his eyes lit up, I must say, when he heard his name. I did not want to detain him for very long. It was much more important that he talked to the “Today” programme, who were waiting to speak to him, and to “Newsnight” and Channel 4.
It was clear to me, in the very short conversation I had with him, that he does not understand what the Government’s position is on his case, and when I look back to the exchanges we had in this House on 15 November, most of the rest of the House do not understand. I almost feel, again in agreement with my noble friend Lord Dubs, that this is one of those debates where it might have been helpful if the Minister had spoken first. Then we could have examined what he had to tell us—and we are all looking forward to what he has to tell us—to see if we could understand more about the impasse that we face and is being faced now.
When I walked across there, incidentally, I thought of medieval history, because we have a statue of a hostage outside our Chamber, outside Peers’ Entrance. Richard I spent a year as a hostage, if I remember rightly.
I hope I am not being unduly unfair to the British Government, but I am beginning to wonder whether I am lobbying the wrong Government. I would like to explore the relationship between the British and American Governments. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said that, from the American point of view, it is a sovereign decision of a sovereign Government whether to pay the money, but I think everybody in this House today agrees that the money must be paid. Interestingly, I read in an internal briefing—it was not remotely secret in any way; it was just a regular internal briefing—from within the State Department that, on 5 September last year, the then foreign ministry spokesperson for the Iranian Government, Saeed Khatibzadeh, said:
“The payment of the UK debt has nothing to do with the release of the dual prisoners. The UK government definitely has a 40-year debt to Iran, and it makes no difference whether a British official has acknowledged the debt or not.”
I must admit that I have never heard it said that the Iranians do not think there is a link. I would be interested to hear in the Minister’s reply what type of connection and contacts there have been between the Foreign Office and the Iran desk in the State Department.
Regarding the JCPOA talks which began in Vienna, which other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Austin, mentioned, on 21 October this year Robert Malley, who was leading those negotiations as the President’s special envoy, said that he was there
“to have conversations with Iran to deal with regional issues and other issues.”
I would just like to explore whether those other issues might include anything related to the Nazanin case, because I think the House would like to know more about the relationship and the discussions between the British and American Governments. As has been pointed out already, former President Obama had no difficulty—I did not know it was flying cash over in a plane, or whatever it was—so there must be some mechanism by which this £400 million can be paid.
I will leave it there, but I think the Government owe the House, not to mention Richard Ratcliffe and his family, a better explanation and more effort than they have shown so far.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury for initiating this debate and Tulip Siddiq MP for her tireless campaigning. I also add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on her most moving maiden speech.
This is not an issue between the people of Iran or the people of the UK. It is between two Governments. I do not believe there was ever a golden era of British diplomacy; it has always been about power, money and leverage. Having said that, when the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service were better staffed and we had more talented political leaders, I feel sure that this case would have been handled much better.
As it is, we are mired in a multi-level mud pile: a debt which an international court has said we owe, so we are breaking international law—no change there, then; a court case which no doubt has suited both sides to drag on for decades; the UK’s own legislation passed post Brexit, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti mentioned, which replaced the EU’s sanctions regime with its own, meaning that paying the acknowledged debt would contravene the UK’s own legislation; and, I suspect the main problem, relations with the USA, which could apply its own sanctions to UK entities and, more importantly, affect future trade agreements between the USA and the UK.
I believe the latter is dead in the water anyway until either Joe Biden or Boris Johnson goes. The Prime Minister’s active support for Mr Trump could hardly endear him to the current Administration. As has already been said, when asked whether the US would stand in the way of the UK meeting a payment to Iran, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that it was
“a sovereign decision for the United Kingdom.”
For heaven’s sake, what else was he going to say—“We have informed our 52nd state that we will not be buying so much as a pencil from them if they do not do as they are told”? I doubt it very much. As I said, there are multiple layers of mud.
The Government might be surprised to know that I agree that payment of the debt should not be linked to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release; nor should we be seen to give in to blackmail, as she and others are clearly political hostages. Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s current sentence is linked to her demonstrating outside the Iranian embassy in 2009. No doubt, this is a trumped-up charge but, before we start to feel superior, is not the legislation currently going through Parliament intended to curb the right to protest and demonstrate? Similarly, countries have the right to decide whether or not to recognise dual nationals. Remember Australia, where a few parliamentarians had to stand again for election because they were not born there. Iran has this right, no matter how inconvenient it might be.
We are left with the human story of an individual who is being used a political pawn. Her rights and freedoms have been denied. Her family has been subjected to untold mental suffering. When I chaired ACAS, I witnessed the most incredible staff coming up with solutions—so many were unlikely, but they worked. Sometimes it is about changing the agenda. Completed deals do not have to be good deals—they just have to be acceptable to both sides. If the UK and Iranian Governments would consent, I would willingly travel to Tehran at my own expense to collect Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and bring her home. I am sure others in this Chamber tonight would do the same. It would not be part of any deal. It would not be linked with anything. I would promise not to make any statements which would hinder future relations. I express my solidarity with Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I suggest that the Government need to change their agenda.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I think the mood of the House is to want to hear answers from the Minister to the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, so clearly asked in introducing this debate. We are indebted to him for bringing this matter to us and for the way in which he introduced it. I will briefly comment on the categories into which those questions fall.
Before I do so, I also wish to remark on the gripping maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. Forgiveness is hard, in many respects, when it affects our families. Her speech was humbling and came from a very humble person. If she does not mind me saying so, her surname, Francis-Dehqani, itself suggests a duality. I ask her to forgive me if I have pronounced it incorrectly. It represents how people can come together and live together. As she indicated, this is not an issue between the British and Iranian peoples. It is a human tragedy, as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, said. It clearly illustrates how Britain can be a shelter in the storm in times of trouble for individuals. It also means that our own culture and country are strengthened by them. We are grateful for the contribution of the right reverend Prelate.
My noble friend Lady Northover asked, rhetorically, how many times we have had to raise this case. This is the 21st time that she has raised it, and I give her credit, just as others, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, have raised it consistently in this place, and MPs including Tulip Siddiq, the local MP, have raised it on a cross-party basis. After a number of weeks of asking questions of the Minister and of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, I fear that our patience is wearing thin on specific questions that have been raised today and in recent weeks.
For example, my noble friend Lady Northover, in her previous contribution in June this year, asked about the attendance of British diplomats at court hearings for Nazanin. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and others indicated, what is the value of providing diplomatic protection status to a British national for the first time since 1951 if there is no meaningful benefit from it being provided? If there is no meaningful benefit in this case, it undermines the whole concept of providing it to a British national, which is of deep concern.
Other noble Lords and I have been out and spoken to Richard Ratcliffe, and seen the sacrifices he has made and his dedication to his family. His questions, which are reasonable, are now receiving weaker answers. For example, the previous Foreign Secretary—and there have been five since the original detention of Nazanin—made a statement on torture. As has been indicated, the former Foreign Secretary said that the treatment of her was tantamount to torture, but the Government have then done nothing about it. I was told by Richard that British officials had previously raised this with Iranian officials, but then did nothing. This is not simply a concern to raise. The Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has obligations on those party to it. If we believe that a British national, joint or otherwise, is subject to torture in breach of the convention, we have a formal duty to ask that it is investigated.
I asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, whether we have formally requested that Iran investigate allegations of torture, under the convention. The noble Lord gave a sincere response, saying
“I hear what the noble Lord says. On my return from your Lordships’ House, I will make sure that this issue is raised specifically in the briefing that is prepared.”—[Official Report, 27/10/21; col. 798.]
That briefing was prepared in advance of when the Foreign Secretary met Richard Ratcliffe. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House and me on the result of that discussion, because it is simply not good enough if, every time a British Foreign Secretary changes, the slate is wiped clean and a new Foreign Secretary starts with a new initiative. This is where some frustrations have been raised; the second area regards the allegations of being a hostage.
When we asked about the IMS and the £400 million, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, stated in the House that it was his view that providing millions of pounds to the Iranian Government would be seen as paying ransom money. He later clarified that in a letter that he had to write to us, stating that the Government believed that they were duty bound to provide those funds. But as the noble Lord, Lord Wood, asked clearly, what is the position of the Government and where are the blocks for releasing those funds? Is it, as has been mentioned, that the maximum-pressure approach under the Trump Administration, separate from the Obama Administration when it comes to the use of dollars in providing funds, is something that our Foreign Secretary is aligned with? Is it that we do not wish to have the issue of paying this money raised during the Vienna discussions in relation to the request from Iran to release all sanctions? If Iran has deferred the final formal requests for the process of payments to be made through non sanction-prohibited bodies, what is the Government’s understanding as to why that is the case? The position of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, when he said
“We continue to explore options, as I said before, to resolve this case”—[Official Report, 15/11/21; col. 17.]
is simply not credible any more. We now need answers as to why that is not being provided.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wood, indicated, it seems as if there is no longer a strategy for that approach. We hear Governments say that they are doing all they can, but that is not communicated to Richard Ratcliffe or Parliament. Nor are international conventions activated or other opportunities taken when deciding whether this is defined as a hostage scenario under UK law. We continue to ask these questions and will do so repeatedly, patiently but persistently until we have answers—but fundamentally until Nazanin is returned home to her family.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and join in the appreciation of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in bringing this issue to the Chamber. As ever, I have listened carefully to all the comments and contributions.
However, it would be remiss of me not to join others in welcoming the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford to your Lordships’ House. As many noble Lords said, her contribution has illustrated that the House is so much richer for her presence. I am sure that we will see such talents very much on display in future debates. I was reminded that there are some experiences that put the whole issue into perspective, perhaps not just in the challenges and the incredibly moving story that the right reverend Prelate shared with us, for which I thank her. I am sure that I speak for every noble Lord in this House and those who will read Hansard.
I was thinking: the right reverend Prelate is a Christian born in a Muslim country and I am a Muslim born in a Christian country, yet our experiences are so different. On a lighter note, I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, at the start of this debate, thereby showing the combining of traditions, that my young son is in a nativity play this evening. I shall give my apologies to him later. Nevertheless, that brought great reflection on the incredible place that is our United Kingdom, though it is not without challenges. Therefore, having the right reverend Prelate’s contribution on this important issue, and indeed those of other noble Lords, not just causes us to listen but impacts on us to our core.
I mention on the record the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. He said that we will keep going. I want him to keep going and it is right that he does, because it brings hope for the likes of Richard Ratcliffe and others. Most importantly, it brings hope for those British nationals in Iran that this matter will be brought to the British Parliament. I also join others in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, reminded us of the number of occasions that this issue has been raised. As the right reverend Prelate said in her moving speech, regarding compassion, I seek compassion as I fear I may not be able to satisfy noble Lords in every element of the answers that I give. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others who continually represent the interests of those who are in Iran, because it does bring hope. I welcome that.
Nazanin’s unfair detention—it is unfair—is cruel and intolerable. The ordeal that she has been subjected to by the Iranian authorities is completely unacceptable. I assure noble Lords that the Government have maintained a campaign of pressure on the Iranian Government throughout Nazanin’s detention, and we will not relent until she is released. I hope that that provides a degree—I emphasise that word—of hope to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, because one should never give up hope. I certainly do not, and I know that other noble Lords share that sentiment, because debates such as this perhaps ultimately bring a faint glimmer of hope that this issue matters. I assure noble Lords that it matters to Her Majesty’s Government.
We are wholly committed to maintaining pressure on the Iranian authorities, until all UK nationals detained in Iran are reunited with their families, including not just Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe but Anoosheh Ashoori, Morad Tahbaz and others, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned. In the relationship that we have with the families of others, we respect the confidentiality of the conversations that we undertake.
I turn to Nazanin’s case. Since her arrest at Imam Khomeini Airport in 2016 and the family’s request for consular assistance, UK Ministers and officials have always carefully considered, pursued and, of course, acted on this. We have offered the best opportunities to ensure that we continue to secure her immediate release. As several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, mentioned, in 2019 the then-Foreign Secretary afforded diplomatic protection to Nazanin—a decision that formally raised her case to a state-to-state issue and certainly sent a clear diplomatic signal to the Iranian Government that their behaviour was, frankly, totally wrong.
Nazanin’s release from prison on furlough to live with her parents in Tehran, which I know all noble Lords welcomed last year, provided a degree—I emphasise that word again—of respite. Tragically and regrettably, though, the Iranian system has continued to put her through a very gruelling mental ordeal. In March this year, after Nazanin’s sentence was completed and her ankle tag was removed, Iran brought further baseless charges against her.
The noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Campbell-Savours, and others rightly raised the UK’s position and our action to date. I assure noble Lords that we continue to raise our concerns about Nazanin’s detention and mistreatment throughout the process. When the second set of charges was formalised at a court hearing in April, we summoned the Iranian chargé d’affaires and demanded Nazanin’s immediate release. When her appeal was rejected in October, we objected in the strongest terms and demanded her release at the highest levels of the Iranian system.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and others that it has certainly been the UK Government’s consistent approach to continue to engage with Iran, notwithstanding our close ally and friend the United States. Indeed, noble Lords mentioned the JCPOA and other discussions that we have. We work very closely with the United States and other partners, but equally—I know that this view is shared by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and others—we continue to maintain that the JCPOA, notwithstanding its faults and challenges, still represents the best way of ensuring that Iran does not move towards developing nuclear weapons, about which other noble Lords have aired concerns, which I share.
I assure noble Lords that I can speak frankly about our ambassador, Simon Shercliff, who is doing a sterling job. I know him very well. He lobbies senior Iranians at every opportunity, as do our Ministers. In her discussions with the Iranian Foreign Minister in November, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, once again demanded the full and permanent release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, as did my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Middle East, James Cleverly, during his conversation with the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister, which also took place this month.
In all these discussions, we have been crystal clear that Nazanin should be allowed to return home immediately and that under no circumstances should she be returned to prison, which would represent a watershed moment in UK-Iranian bilateral relations. Despite this Government’s unwavering desire to see the full and permanent release of all those who are being detained in Iran, it remains within Iran’s gift to do the right thing and release them. Iran is responsible for putting them through an intolerable ordeal—and their families, as we have heard through the experience of Richard and Gabriella. It remains Tehran’s moral obligation to release them immediately so that they can be returned to their families. We continue to do what we can to support Nazanin’s family, since they requested assistance, and we have a consular team available to them 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken directly with both Richard Ratcliffe and Nazanin on a number of occasions and, while she has been living with her parents in Tehran, successive Foreign Secretaries have done so. Our ambassador in Tehran is in regular contact with her and has been able to visit her at her parents’ home. We will continue to offer that support until Nazanin has returned home.
The welfare of all those who are still detained in Iranian prisons remains a top priority. Both Anoosheh and Morad are exposed to heightened risk, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and it has been further heightened with the risk of Covid. We remain deeply concerned, as he said, about their health and urge Iran for their immediate release. Our ambassador in Tehran regularly insists on the humanitarian treatment of those detained by Iran and lobbies on specific health concerns we have and other issues raised by the families.
We have also raised our concerns in countless formal diplomatic correspondence and requested consular access, medical treatment, furloughs and details of judicial process but, as the noble Lord, Lord Austin, reminded us, this is unacceptable. It is Iran’s responsibility, and we continue to remind Iran of its responsibility as an international player on the global stage. I assure noble Lords that the Foreign Secretary has taken every opportunity to discuss this with relevant international partners—the noble Lords, Lord Wood and Lord Dubs, among others, raised this issue—and to collaborate on ways to bring an end to Iran’s unacceptable practice of detaining foreign nationals and dual nationals. Indeed, that is why we signed up to the Canadian initiative on arbitrary detention.
This Government and I—I cannot overstate this—have the utmost admiration for Richard Ratcliffe’s commitment to securing Nazanin’s release and support his family. I add my welcome to the noble Viscount. In what was a challenging and emotional debate, I was struck that perhaps there is something to his early experiences in your Lordships’ House and his spiritual introduction through the maiden speeches that he has heard. I met Richard during his recent hunger strike, as did my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, the Minister of State, Mr Cleverly, and senior officials. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked who met Richard. It was difficult. Richard was sitting outside my place of work. I cannot speak for other Conservatives, but this Tory certainly went and met Richard. I have met Richard before. I met him in New York, and I certainly gave him both my personal assurance that I will do whatever I can. I appreciate noble Lords recognising that the Government have to work within parameters and discreet discussions take place. Nevertheless, I again assure all noble Lords that we offer Richard direct support—as have I and my colleagues—and stand firmly with his campaign and recognise the incredible effort and absolute devotion that he is showing to secure the release of Nazanin. We very much stand with him.
I turn to the issue of the IMS debt raised by the noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Wood, Lord Monks and Lord Purvis—the list goes on. Checking back, I think that every noble Lord—including the noble Baronesses, Lady Donaghy and Lady Chakrabarti—raised it. I can clarify one thing. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that yes, to be clear, the UK accepts that this is a legal debt and it has to be paid. That has been very clear in our communications. We owe it to Iran and want to see it resolved.
Next comes the question of when. Various discussions are currently under way in this respect and noble Lords will appreciate that I am limited in what I can say at this juncture. However, I can assure noble Lords that discussions and debates that take place in your Lordships’ House are noted; if I am not wrong, this is the third occasion in the last month on which we have had a debate or Question on this important issue and that underlines the commitment to it shown by your Lordships’ House. We recognise that this issue needs to be resolved at the earliest opportunity.
There is little more I can add on the IMS debt. The issue of diplomatic protection was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. There was a decision that formally raised Nazanin’s case to a state issue and that sent a clear diplomatic signal to the Iranian Government that their behaviour was totally wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, raised the treatment of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and others during their detentions. As I have said already, it is certainly our view that Iran continues these cruel and intolerable ordeals. I assure the noble Lord that we continue to press on these issues in direct and bilateral discussions with the Iranians. Nazanin must be allowed to return permanently to her family in the UK and we will continue to press in this respect. The noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Austin, asked about this issue as well.
I believe I have answered on the issue of diplomatic leverage that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. I was pleased, in listening to her speech very carefully, to note the part of her comments in which she recognised and shared the same belief as the Government that we will never accept any British national being used for diplomatic leverage.
The noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, asked about human rights. The UK continues to take steps to address Iran’s human rights record. Iranian ambassadors are regularly summoned, and we continue to raise issues at the Human Rights Council and the UN. I have already talked about the arbitrary detention initiative of our Canadian partners. We are working with G7 partners to enhance mechanisms to uphold international law, tackle human rights abuses and stand up for our shared values.
The noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, also spoke about the levers available to Her Majesty’s Government. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, is correct that I will not speculate on sanctions or future sanctions policy. However, I strongly believe that our support of the global human rights sanctions regime—a number of noble Lords alluded to their attendance at the Magnitsky awards—is a real recognition of the Government’s belief that human rights matter and that those who commit egregious abuses of human rights should be held to account.
Noble Lords consistently raised a number of issues, most notably those of the IMS debt and the continued detention of Nazanin and others. In concluding my remarks, I assure noble Lords that I recognise the strong sentiment here and will again emphasise this to colleagues in the FCDO. I have been at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it was—now the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—for a while now and can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that there is nothing I have said that we are seeking to hold back.
Negotiations are of course under way on the IMS debt. Like all who expressed their sentiments during this debate, we wish to resolve this at the earliest opportunity. I recognise and welcome that this may not be the last occasion on which I will appear in your Lordships’ House to discuss this issue—I wish it was. Indeed, I pray that it will be, but I fear it will not. It is important that we continue to lobby, represent, collaborate and raise the plight of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and others in Iran, because this provides hope.
I will end, if I may, with the words of the right reverend Prelate, and I welcome her again to the House. She talked of compassion; her story demonstrably showed that compassion and humility are the best of us. Those are enduring qualities which we all seek and today we certainly heard those in action. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, once again for raising, and continuing to raise, this important matter.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions this afternoon. This has been an excellent and incredibly moving debate. I add my appreciation for the excellent maiden speech by the right reverend Prelate.
I do not dispute for one moment the effort that the Minister and other government Ministers have put into the campaign of pressure that he referred to but, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, we have had five Foreign Secretaries, each pursuing a new initiative, including diplomatic status. The fundamental question which, sadly, the Minister failed to answer is: why has this country failed when others have succeeded? I hope that when he goes back to the department, that will be uppermost in his mind.
Of course, one other point in relation to the five Foreign Secretaries is that there has been a continuity Minister, who is, of course, the noble Lord himself. He has successfully been a Minister of State in the Foreign Office under all those Foreign Secretaries, so I hope he can provide that continuity message to his superiors about the need not only to continue with the campaign of pressure but to understand better what is needed to resolve this issue—the plan of action that is so desperately needed.
The Minister said that it is in Iran’s gift to release the British nationals, including Nazanin, and he is absolutely right. He said that it is in Iran’s gift to do the right thing and that it is their moral obligation. Here, I come back to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. In her maiden speech, she said that it is about upholding international law, setting an example of integrity and doing the right thing. I hope the Minister will take that message back clearly in terms of the debt that is recognised as owed by this country to Iran.
This has been an excellent debate. I am not going delay the House any more. I just hope those messages get through.
Storm Arwen
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Minister may have heard of a small village in Cumbria called Ullock. In Ullock, we were without power from Friday evening through to Tuesday afternoon, so I have an acute understanding of the impact of Storm Arwen and the extreme weather it brought, which has been so challenging for the district network operators to fix, but it now appears that we were fortunate in that we were off for only four nights. The severity of the storm and the difficulties in restoring electricity connection referred to in the Statement have highlighted a number of serious concerns that the Government need to address.
First, will the Minister tell us what consideration the Government have given specifically to the impact on rural communities that are not on the gas grid and not as accessible in poor weather? Without gas, communities rely much more heavily on electricity for heating, hot water and cooking a hot meal, and it has been really cold. The Government and power companies were warned about the storm, so why was more attention not paid and more preparations made to provide the support that the rural and more isolated communities would need?
Where I live, there are elderly residents in their 90s, who are not classified as clinically vulnerable, so they had no extra support, apart from neighbours—who were in the same position, with no heat, no light, no hot water and no hot food. Does the Minister agree that the very old should not be left in this position for days on end?
This brings me to my concerns, personally experienced, about the very poor quality of much communication. In the 21st century, we should surely be able to provide timely and accurate information to residents. Electricity North West told me that I was experiencing a “fault journey”. Unfortunately, I had no idea when or where that journey was likely to end. While I still had charge in my phone, I could go to the website to read the out-of-date and inaccurate information, which told me on a number of occasions that there was no fault in my postcode area. My husband called and was on hold for a long time, as were so many others. When he was finally put through, he was told that there was no information available and to keep up to date through the website. Of course, you cannot do this once your phone is flat.
Moving on to compensation, can the Minister categorically assure the House that there will be a prompt settlement of compensation claims and no attempt by any DNO to try to wriggle out of paying all claims in full? We should also remind ourselves that high levels of compensation are set by Ofgem to encourage DNOs to increase resilience. Will the Government ask Ofgem to increase the requirement on DNOs to improve domestic resilience, because if there is a lesson to be learned from Storm Arwen, it is that our long-term resilience against extreme weather is simply not good enough?
Yesterday, in the other place, Kwasi Kwarteng said that the Government would be
“trying actively to learn lessons”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/21; col. 929.]
He also said:
“We have to be prepared for similarly extreme difficult weather conditions in future and make sure that our system is resilient in that eventuality”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/21; col. 921.]
He is absolutely correct in that. We know that climate change will bring more extreme weather events and, as part of the efforts to tackle climate change, the Government are, quite rightly, phasing out fossil fuels. That includes petrol and diesel, gas and oil. There has been much discussion during the debate on the Statement about generators. What are the plans for generators once petrol and diesel have been phased out?
As we move away from oil and gas heating and towards electrical heating across all homes—because currently that is really the only option—how will the Government make the network resilient? Can the Government categorically say that it can be made completely resilient for the future in its current form? If we cannot rely on the resilience of the grid, we need to look at how we can make our homes resilient. What plans do the Government have for this? For example, what investment is being made into battery storage technologies? What work is being done to look at the future build of new homes to bring in this resilience? We could, for example, fit all new homes with solar panels with a battery storage back-up when that future technology is ready. We need long-term investment to make this happen.
Storm Arwen has been a warning to the Government and to the power companies that, with climate change and the likelihood of more frequent weather events, we cannot continue as we are. With the decarbonisation and electrification of domestic heating, there must be resilience built in for when the supply fails while the grid is being restored. What are the Government doing to get Ofgem to incentivise the DNOs to do this? How is Ofgem working with them to achieve this as quickly as possible? Will the Minister speak to the Government about reporting back to Parliament in six months on progress made in this area?
Finally, if the Minister is not taken by my suggestions on how we could make domestic properties more resilient outside of the grid network, can he inform your Lordships’ House how the Government are investing for the future so that we do not have to revisit the misery faced following Storm Arwen over and again?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself and these Benches with the points made so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, both now and at Questions earlier. Her frustration is representative of the many people who must declare an interest in this issue. When I came down from the Borders last Monday, I had no power in my house; when I arrived back there on Friday there were eight outages that evening and no power overnight on Saturday. However, I was one of the lucky ones because I had some power on Sunday.
I hope that the disproportionate effect on rural areas will be the key lesson in the post-incident review to which the Government have committed. For those living in Kincardine who still lack reliable power, there should be an equivalent test: how would this place treat it if it were Knightsbridge? We are asking people to do the same: to work from home, provide services and care for people. There should be no difference between a resident in Knightsbridge and a resident in Kincardine in the 21st century, especially during a pandemic when people want to be carers or to work from home.
I noticed in the Statement that the Minister had been in Berwick, so I declare my second interest. It is my hometown and where my mum and dad still live. I know that the Minister knows the north-east extremely well as he is a northerner; actually, he is a north-easterner. It is unsettling when you speak to elderly relatives who are genuinely scared about what is happening and are vulnerable due to what happens afterwards. The lack of support for vulnerable communities in rural areas has been shocking in this regard.
The question will be: who has the primary responsibility? I know that many local authorities and their staff have worked extremely hard over this time; I saw it for myself with the local authority for the Borders, and the farmers and others who cleared roads and supported people. Many people in these communities are also first responders and, during this situation, have been checking on vulnerable residents in local authorities. However, certainly in the Borders, local authorities have been extremely frustrated with the electricity companies due to their lack of communication with customers; this was outlined eloquently before.
I will say one thing to the Minister with regard to the Statement. Some people in the north-east of Scotland have had not only their power supply but their mobile phone masts go down. Many communities have now been passed over to voice through broadband phones, as in my house, but there has been no communication at all. Therefore, the Statement giving an indication that people should dial 105 from their landline or mobile when they have no mobile phone coverage is—how should I say this?—insensitive, to say the least. I do not know how the Minister will do it but one lesson that we must learn is how to have civil contingencies when so much now relies on mobile and electricity networks.
My other question relates to power lines. In a former life, before I was elected in the Borders, I worked for David Steel when he was an MP. I strongly remember the awful length of the power cuts then. I know about the modernisation of the network in the north of England and Scotland.
Do we stress test the local networks? We stress test banks and other institutions, but is there a lack of legislative power for the Government to insist that companies stress test their networks so we know that, when it comes to what could well be more frequent events, the networks have been graded on a stress-test basis? This has given a lot of people a lack of confidence in the network and many of the companies.
The final thing I would say is that we have seen through bitter experience—certainly in the Borders and other areas, and in the north-west of England—that there have been improvements in flood warning systems and the way communities are able to operate. These systems have been put in place so that, when flood alerts are indicated, the public bodies and the private sector are prepared. But it seems as though we are not learning from those experiences with floods when it comes to electricity outages. I would be grateful to know what the post-incident review scope is and, in particular, how customers, consumers and communities themselves can feed into it when they are back to having reliable energy supplies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. Let me state that I totally share their frustration and annoyance. Storm Arwen has brought severe weather to many parts of the north of our country, and those in the north of England and Scotland have suffered the most. Many have been without power for several days, and we totally understand their frustration, annoyance and indeed fury. I am not immune to that, as someone who comes from that part of the world as well. Let me reiterate that we are all working incredibly hard to ensure we can return to normality as soon as is humanly possible.
Yesterday, my Secretary of State stated in the Commons that restoring power across the entire country is a “grave concern” of ours, and a top priority and focus for the Government. Officials are in constant contact with the distribution network operators to understand their response, and operators have a mature and successful programme of sharing and deploying qualified resources to those areas most in need. My Secretary of State is having daily calls with local resilience forums, including the various chairmen in the north of England, to discuss the ongoing response. The Government continue to reinforce that, if additional support is needed by the industry, it needs only to escalate it to senior officials. Let me say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that the Government remain in constant regular communication with the distribution network operators, to ensure that communication—which, frankly, has been lamentable in many cases—is up to speed.
In the case of Northern Powergrid, I understand its phone lines are now operating properly; obviously there were problems with calls initially. Waits are now down from several hours to a few minutes, so people can now contact it.
The scale of the restoration effort that engineers are facing is enormous. The storm brought down trees and debris on to power lines, and wind speeds were exceptional. Since the storm hit, on Friday 26 November, over 4,000 engineers have been working round the clock to repair damage in very difficult conditions. Nearly 800 generators have been deployed to provide people with emergency power, and I am pleased to report to the House that, so far, over 98% of those affected by the storm—more than 964,000 customers—have had their power supply restored so far. I totally accept that that will be no compensation whatever to the few thousand who are still without power. As of 4 pm today, that was about 15,000 households, and that includes about 9,000 in the north-east, focused around the Wear Valley, Eastgate and north Northumberland; about 3,000 in the north-west, especially in the north Peak District and the south lakes areas; and a little under 3,000 across north Scotland, mostly in Aberdeenshire and Perthshire.
To confirm, all customers who have faced electricity distribution issues caused by Storm Arwen will have their power restored before Christmas—there was no truth in the rumours Members were referring to this morning. We expect to have the vast majority of those customers connected within one week. We know people are desperate to return to normality, and my department has been reassured that power will be restored, as I said, to the majority of customers by the end of this week, at the latest.
On the lessons learned, I thank the people who have borne with us during these difficult times and give a final reassurance that everyone involved is straining every sinew to ensure that they are reconnected as quickly as possible. We will ensure that all the appropriate lessons have been learned and, if such a storm happens again, that we are as resilient as we possibly can be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about compensation. Ofgem, the independent regulator, sets service levels that companies must meet, with rules on how quickly network operators must restore power. It also sets compensation payments for consumers if those standards are not met, as they clearly have not been in these circumstances. I will ensure that Ofgem puts maximum pressure on the companies for those compensation payments to be made as swiftly and speedily as possible.
Regarding vulnerable consumers, those who have reached state pension age can register as priority service customers with their network operator, and will then be prioritised in terms of support, including to rural communities. We are working with the network operators to reduce vulnerabilities in future and to ensure that the network is as resilient as possible to these disruptive events. We intend urgently to review the exercise with the network operators to stress test the appropriate systems and will be able to share the terms of reference for review once the incident is over. We can then finalise the appropriate scope. Ofgem will also consider whether there is need for any further regulatory investigation.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made a very good point about people not being able to get in touch when mobiles are down. The priority service register means that when outages occur, operators will already be able to locate the most vulnerable affected people and help them. They set up strategic hubs in the disrupted areas to aid communication with other customers, but I totally accept that these are often sparsely populated areas, and often rural areas with poor transport and communication links. Many network operators did their best in difficult circumstances.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I fully agree with what has been said by other noble Lords so far. I have a house on the Northumberland coast, near Alnwick, which, as my noble friend will be aware, received the highest wind rating—98 mph—during this terrible storm, a storm which is very difficult to be ready for or predict.
My question is a little broader. My house sustained some damage, but that can be put right. Luckily, I did not lose any power there. What sort of audit will be carried out following the storm, not necessarily to learn lessons but to put things right? Thousands of trees in Kielder Forest, which my noble friend and I know well, have been destroyed. They will have to be replanted. All along the Northumberland coast, facilities of all kinds have been destroyed, such as golf courses on the links. These may not be a priority to some people right now, but nevertheless, they are important to some small business, such as cafés and restaurants. Agricultural equipment and facilities to store it have been destroyed. The insurance companies will no doubt be involved, and I hope that my noble friend will be asking them to be as speedy and sympathetic as possible in putting things right, but what audit will be carried out to look at the effects of this storm and how, perhaps, more aid can be given in a directed manner, to put things right as soon as possible for the communities that have suffered so much?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes some good points, and I am obviously pleased to hear that his property was not too badly affected. As he knows, I know the area well and I am pleased that his power managed to be left in place. He makes some very good points about the totality of the damage, not just to public infrastructure and essential services, but to local authorities’ premises and the property of private businesses; it will be immense. Our priority at the moment is to get everybody restored and back on to the network, but we will need to learn the lessons and look at what we can do to help the affected communities in future.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership and a landowner in Cumbria who was not directly affected by the power cuts. Can the Minister confirm that the capacity of the infrastructure to respond to events like this is equivalent in the various parts of England, in particular between the north and south?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes, I believe that it is. The network operators are as resilient and able in the north of England as they are in the south. But a fact of the geography and communication of this country is that many more people live in the south. Those of us in the north always complain that when there are severe snowstorms and snow events, in the north nobody notices, but if a little bit of snow falls in London it is a catastrophe and all over the national news—which is probably characteristic of how many of our national broadcasters and reporters are based in and around the capital. It is up to us from the north to make sure that this does not happen in future and that cataclysmic events such as this get the appropriate coverage and respect.