House of Commons
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 3 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, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I pay tribute to all those who responded to the flash flooding incidents in London last summer, which took everybody so by surprise. I know that her constituency was particularly affected. We have doubled our flood defence programme to £5.2 billion, with 34% of planned projects aimed at surface water management. That includes £13 million this year for 32 schemes across London, which will better protect 2,300 properties.
Felicity Buchan
In July my constituency experienced devastating flooding, with more than 2,000 homes affected. Many residents are still in temporary accommodation, and many have lost all of their belongings, especially those in basement flats. In 2007 we experienced similar flooding. At that time, a plan was put in place to put in an emergency relief sewer. That never happened; it was not actioned. What can my hon. Friend and the Department do to hold water companies to account and ensure that Ofwat is tough in regulating them?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and my sympathy goes out to those who suffered and indeed are still suffering. We expect water companies to carry out their duties and deliver on their commitments, and we fully support the regulators in holding them to account. In the 2019 price review, Ofwat confirmed that Thames Water had incurred a penalty of £148 million for cancelling the Counter’s Creek project, which I believe is the one she refers to. As Members will know, the Government are now taking strong action on the water companies, through our statement to Ofwat. I have met my hon. Friend before, but I would be particularly happy to discuss this project with her.
Mr Speaker
This is a very closed question—I am sure Barnsley must be linked somehow.
Dan Jarvis
As you and the House will know, Mr Speaker, flooding is of course a challenge right around the country. I am grateful for the Minister’s support today, and as she knows, tomorrow we are launching Connected by Water, which is a pioneering regional flooding strategy for South Yorkshire. It is the first of its kind and will protect thousands of businesses and homes, but as the Minister also knows, there is a bit more to do. Will she commit to working with us to secure the additional £76 million that we need to deliver it?
Mr Speaker
I think that is the worst connected question I’ve ever heard in this House. Perhaps the Minister wants to be generous and say very briefly how it could possibly be connected.
Rebecca Pow
“Cheeky” is the word I would use, Mr Speaker. I am doing a speech for that event tomorrow. I am pleased it is being held, and it is important that everyone works together. I understand the issues the hon. Gentleman is facing, and always, as he knows, my door is open. I think he will agree that we have done a great deal for his area to help sort the flooding out, and more work will continue.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
Criminals should have no place to hide when they mindlessly dump waste. Fly-tipping blights lives and neighbourhoods, and wrecks our environment. We are consulting on legislative reforms to the way waste handlers are regulated, and introducing digital waste tracking.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. In the London Borough of Harrow, dealing with fly-tipping on the public highway costs council tax payers £1.5 million each year just to clear it up. The worst aspect is fly-tipping on privately owned land. What further measures can my hon. Friend take to highlight those people, catch them, put them through the courts, and get justice for people with privately owned land?
Jo Churchill
We know that fly-tipping incidents have increased. We had 1.13 million of them last year. We are taking that robust action, which we have been enabled to do through the Environment Act, and our recent consultations clearly set out how we will ensure that offenders face the full force of the law. Last year, we launched a grant scheme to provide £350,000 in funding for councils to tackle fly-tipping, but I commend Harrow Council on having made a large investment—£300,000—in its enforcement team. It is taking an area-based approach, it is delivering more fines, and it is using the full fixed penalty of £400. However, I urge my hon. Friend to urge his council to bring more prosecutions forward, as they did not do so last year.
Andrew Selous
Will the Government ensure that the section 33 offence attracts a fixed penalty of at least £2,000, much more than the price of a skip? At the moment, it is a rational economic decision for people to fly-tip, albeit a horrendously antisocial one. The fixed penalty for the section 34 offence should also rise to £1,000, so that we can kill off the illegal waste industry that is turning parts of our beautiful country into a litter tip.
Jo Churchill
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend: fly-tipping blights our countryside and, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), blights our towns. As I have said, we are taking robust action. We need to ensure that those fixed penalty notices are high enough to act as a deterrent, that more serious offences can be prosecuted, and that courts can hand down fines in excess of the fixed penalty notice should the offence be sufficiently serious. We are producing a new guide on how to present robust prosecutions, which should support tougher sentences, and digital waste tracking—the reform to waste carriers, brokers and dealers—will allow householders to know where their waste is going and that their contractor is legitimate and transparent. We must do more about this offence, which blights all our constituencies.
Paul Howell
Since I was elected, constituents have written to me continuously about fly-tipping, both in our towns and particularly on farmers’ land. One of the reasons for the increase has been the ease with which the public can obtain waste removal licences: the checks and balances just do not appear to be sufficient. Will the Minister explain what the Government plan to do to increase the detail in which those checks are undertaken by the local authorities, to stop people providing a cowboy waste service that undercuts legitimate businesses, and stop them from abandoning that waste on the streets and farms of places such as Sadberge, Trimdon, Wheatley Hill and Wingate?
Jo Churchill
I agree with my hon. Friend: it is not fair that legitimate businesses are undercut by individuals who do not treat waste properly, and who take no care in anything they are doing. The waste carrier registration scheme needs reform urgently: that is why we are acting, and it is why we published our consultation. The measures that we announced will increase the competence and background checks that are needed to operate in the sector, and make it easier for regulators to take enforcement action to make sure we hound the criminals out of this industry and support our legitimate businesses, so that they play by the rules and treat that waste properly. We will make it easier for householders and businesses to act on a level playing field.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Everything that the Minister has just said is music to my ears, because illegal fly-tipping blights all of our communities and shames our country. It destroys our sense of place and our neighbourhoods. As the Minister will know, large-scale fly-tipping more than doubled in England between 2012 and 2019, with councils spending almost £13 million last year cleaning up somebody else’s mess. Of course, part of the problem with enforcement is that the resources available to the Environment Agency and to local government have been cut. What more can she say about ensuring that those enforcement agencies have the tools and the finances they need to get the job done?
Jo Churchill
We have supported the Environment Agency with additional funding of some £60 million in 2019—I think it was—and by making sure that they have the right regulatory framework in which to go forward. We are also supporting our councils, not only by equipping them with better processes and guidance in order to bring these criminals to account, but by making sure that the system is joined up so we know where the waste has been taken from, where it is going, and that it has arrived. We intend to beat this blight.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Fly-tipping is a blight across the UK, both in rural and in urban areas. What recent assessment has the Minister made of the need for fly-tipping to be treated as organised crime, so that investigations are properly resourced?
Jo Churchill
I do not think I can say any more than that it was described as similar to the narcotics industry. We need to treat fly-tipping with that much seriousness: we need to crack down and make sure that the people who are earning illegally and blighting others’ lives are hounded out of this industry.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I first thank the Minister for her enthusiasm in the matter? She clearly means what she says and I thank her for that. The most recent statistics from back home show that in the past two years the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs cleaned up 306 illegal waste sites, costing half a million pounds or the equivalent of 15 nurses’ pay. What discussions has the Minister had with her counterpart in the Northern Ireland Executive to discuss how we can combat these issues together and take the pressure off local councils?
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I meet Ministers from the devolved Administrations regularly. I have not had specific conversations on the matter, but I would be happy to because fly-tipping knows no boundaries. We need to sort it out together.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I would like to begin by acknowledging that today is Holocaust Memorial Day. May we never see such hatred and wickedness again.
The Minister will know that many fly-tips consist mainly of household waste. Wales has seen its household recycling rates catapult from just 4.8% in 1999 to more than 65% in 2021. That is the difference a Labour Government makes. Will the Minister join me in acknowledging the success of the Welsh Labour Government and tell the House what lessons she is learning from them?
Jo Churchill
I associate myself with the hon. Lady’s comments about the holocaust.
Consistent collections, ensuring we can collect the seven strands of waste, will allow all households in this country to make sure they are recycling. Coupled with the deposit return scheme and other measures in the Environment Act 2021, they will ensure that everybody in England can recycle easily and consistently.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Minister mentions the deposit return scheme, because including cartons in the scheme is one extra step the Government could take to tackle fly-tipping. Please will she meet Tetra Pak, based in my constituency, to discuss the feasibility of the onward processing of cartons, which I believe would make that inclusion a practical possibility?
Jo Churchill
As my hon. Friend knows, we will announce more information on the deposit return scheme shortly. I would, of course, be happy to meet his constituent for further discussions. I do not think we should rule anything out, but nor am I making any promises.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Food prices are influenced by a number of factors, including exchange rates and energy prices, both of which have risen since the coronavirus shock. Last year, we published the “United Kingdom Food Security Report 2021” which included a comprehensive analysis of household level food security. It showed that over the last decade spending among the poorest 20% of households has remained relatively stable at 16%.
Dr Huq
Shamefully, this country now has more food banks than branches of McDonald’s. As Jack Monroe, the bootstrap cook, highlighted, inflation at a 30-year high has put many staples out of reach of household food larders, yet at the same time supermarkets have thrown away the equivalent of 190 million meals worth of food. Will the Secretary of State sit down with the big top 10 and charities such as City Harvest in Acton, the Felix Project and the newly launched Ealing Food Cupboard, and work out a way to link the two in a circular economy fashion to eliminate both landfill waste and food insecurity?
George Eustice
The hon. Lady raises an important point that we can reduce food waste. A number of supermarkets are already engaged in programmes to support local food banks. The Government support the FareShare charity, which also helps to redistribute food and tries to prevent food waste in the way she sets out.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Further to that question, many large retailers are keeping their budget lines at a higher price than they need to while not raising the price of higher-priced food, so I think there is an argument that they could do more to lower the price of food. Further to the Secretary of State’s comments on FareShare, can he see the £5 million that I think it is due to get food directly from farms, processors and retailers straight out to the people who need it?
George Eustice
I am aware that my hon. Friend has asked previously whether FareShare could also be engaged in making sure that food from farms does not go to waste, and I have said that I am willing to discuss that with it. On his point about prices, we have a highly competitive retail sector and, generally speaking, it has absorbed some of the price pressures to date.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We are not winding down the seasonal agricultural workers scheme; in fact, we have now extended it until 2024 and it supports both edible and ornamental horticulture. There are 30,000 visas already available, with the potential to increase that to 40,000 if there is demand.
Dr Whitford
Instead of the 70,000 seasonal agricultural workers needed across the UK, the Government are limiting visas to 30,000, which is less than half of what is required. The National Farmers Union of Scotland has warned that, just like last year, we will again see millions of pounds-worth of crops lying rotting in the fields. Will the Secretary of State explain why the UK Government are not providing enough of the visas required? If they cannot manage an immigration scheme without harming one of Scotland’s key sectors, perhaps the Scottish Government should manage our borders.
George Eustice
As the hon. Lady may know, I worked in the soft fruit industry before coming into politics, so I am very familiar with the soft fruit industry in Scotland. It is one of the reasons why the Government have put in place the seasonal workers scheme, and we have had such a scheme since the second world war. Last year, we had a scheme with 30,000 visas, but only just over 25,000 were required. Many settled EU citizens will also continue to return to do seasonal work and we judge that 30,000 is probably the right number.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The emergency authorisation of thiamethoxam has been granted for sugar beet, which is a non-flowering crop so there is no direct risk to bees. However, due to the risk that thiamethoxam can stay in the soil for a period, we impose strict conditions on authorisation, including a requirement not to sow other flowering crops such as oilseed rape in the same field for at least 32 months.
Mr Hollobone
Residents in the Kettering constituency want to see a larger and healthier bee population, but they do not want the England sugar beet crop destroyed by aphids. Will the Secretary of State outline the economic impact on sugar beet production if that pesticide is not used and what examination he has undertaken of alternative means of controlling aphids?
George Eustice
As part of our assessment of emergency authorisations, we consider the economic impact, and it is considerable. The sugar beet industry is an important crop for this country. As hon. Members will be aware, 12 other EU countries have also granted an emergency authorisation for sugar beet, so it is a common approach across Europe, but we have taken many steps to ensure that there is no risk to pollinators.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
England’s nature recovery network is backed by the national delivery partnership, which includes partners such as the Country Land and Business Association. Earlier this month, I set out further details of our new farming schemes, including local nature recovery, which will incentivise farmers to make space for nature on their land and contribute to the network.
Mr Sheerman
I do not want to upset the Secretary of State, but I really like this policy and approve of it wholeheartedly. The fact of the matter is that most of our constituents are not Greta Thunberg or Bill Gates, but they want to roll up their sleeves and do something in their local community. That is why I like the schemes. I am involved in one in John Clare country, in the poet’s neighbourhood, and one in Huddersfield. I speak to farmers, charities and people who really want to do that, but there is a blockage relating to how people get the money and a bit of resource to do it and how they open that up. Farmers, in particular, think it is a magical mystery tour. They want to do it but they cannot get on the journey.
George Eustice
It is great that we have cross-party consensus on the importance of nature. We also have the local nature recovery strategies that local authorities are putting together, making space for nature within local communities and new local nature reserves. In terms of schemes for farmers, we have already announced full details of the sustainable farming incentive and there will be many more details to come on things like landscape recovery for them to engage with.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
We have seen uplifts in quota share across the UK, with an increase of approximately 15% already. It will continue to increase year on year until 2026. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that there have been some particularly significant uplifts for the pelagic sector.
David Duguid
I look forward to continuing to work with the Minister to deliver the best future for Scottish fishermen as we move forward outside the common fisheries policy. Could she provide an estimate of how much the Scottish fishing industry has benefited in 2021 from being outside the CFP and particularly from negotiating as an independent coastal state for the first time?
Victoria Prentis
My hon. Friend, a great champion for the industry, will know that Scotland has so far been allocated 36,000 of the 60,000 tonnes of additional UK quota. The Scottish industry is also benefiting from additional white fish quota and from the ability to undertake quota swaps.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
More data may help in the negotiations, but data is no justification for the much-loathed catch app that the Government are imposing, which requires fishermen to guess the weight of their fish before they land them. When I was with Essex fishers in the estuary earlier in the week, they told me just how difficult that is.
I am not going to slap a dead fish on the Dispatch Box, Mr Speaker, because that would not meet with your approval, but I do have a copy of Tuesday’s Hansard, so I wonder whether the Minister can guess its weight. If she is not within 10%, will that make her a criminal? That is what the new rules will do to England’s fishers from the end of next month.
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman knows that as a cook I am quite keen on guessing the weight of things, but I confess myself totally unable to guess the weight of Hansard without touching it.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s serious question, we will continue to work with the fishing industry on the best way to make sure we have the data that we need—as I think he would agree—to assess the future sustainability of stocks.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
Now that we have left the EU, we can review food labelling to make sure that consumers have the information that they need to make healthy and sustainable choices. We have already launched a consultation on animal welfare labelling, and we will consider the wider aspects of labelling in the coming months.
Huw Merriman
We know that our consumers want to buy British and buy Northern Irish to support higher animal welfare standards and our farming community, but sometimes they find food labelling confusing and misleading as to country of origin. What action have the Government taken to clarify the confusion? What steps will the Minister take, particularly with regard to making the technology even better in future?
Victoria Prentis
Country-of-origin labelling must not mislead. If the main ingredient has a different origin—for example if a British pie has French meat inside—the label must say so. I have spoken to my hon. Friend about possible technological solutions to labelling issues, such as using QR codes, which can give consumers much more information about a product. We will continue to work on those solutions.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Scottish Government—rather sensibly, I think—are awaiting the outcome of the EU review of genome-edited and genetically modified organism products, but the UK Government are pushing rapidly to introduce the production of genetically engineered crops and foodstuffs in England. Through the back-door route in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, they will enter the rest of the UK even if devolved Governments continue to prohibit them. Will any GE or GMO foods introduced in England be labelled as such so that consumers throughout the UK can make informed decisions about the food that they put in their mouth?
Victoria Prentis
As I said, we are undertaking a comprehensive review of labelling; one issue that will be considered is whether a product is produced by GE, which probably will not happen for several years. The hon. Lady will know, although she opposes it, that we have made steps towards bringing in some GE pilots, which I think are going well. I look forward to working with hon. Members across the House on how to label such substances in future.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Coastal communities are key to our levelling-up agenda. A positive picture is emerging for our fishing industry, with a quota uplift of £146 million by 2026. In addition, our £100 million UK seafood fund will invest in coastal communities across the UK.
Damien Moore
Research has shown that, with rising sea levels, Southport could resemble an island by 2050 if no further action is taken. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State commit to visiting Southport to explore what further steps we could take to protect my constituents’ homes from rising water levels and the increased risk of flooding?
George Eustice
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have increased spending on flooding to £5.2 billion so that we can better protect 336,000 properties across England. I would, of course, be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and visit his constituency to discuss the particular challenges that Southport faces.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The fishing industry in Shetland is being hammered by Spanish boats engaging in the completely unsustainable practice of gill netting. I have spoken to the fishing Minister about this in the past. What is being done to stop it or to ensure that, if it is to be done, it is to be done safely?
George Eustice
We keep different gear types and fishing practices under constant review. Concerns are sometimes raised about gill netting; that can be a sustainable form of fishing in some inshore waters, but not in all cases. I would be willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss his particular concern, although in some areas it will be for Marine Scotland to make the technical decisions.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Earlier this month, I set out further details of our future agriculture policy. Local nature recovery will support farmers who want to make space for nature on their holdings, and landscape recovery will support land use change. However, ensuring that tenant farmers can access our future policy is going to be very important, so today I can announce that my noble Friend Baroness Rock will be chairing a new working group to investigate how we can ensure that tenant farmers access our schemes.
Peter Aldous
The consultation on the joint fisheries statement is welcome, and REAF—the Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries—will be making a representation. However, there is a concern among East Anglian inshore fishermen as to the bureaucratic burden being imposed with regard to vessel testing stability, inshore vessel monitoring and the under-10-metre catch app. Accurate data is important, but I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that obligations imposed on SMEs and self-employed individuals are proportionate, realistic and underpinned by common sense.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend has been a long-standing champion for fishermen in his area and the inshore sector in particular. We have introduced the under-10-metre catch app to ensure that we have more accurate data, but I should point out to him that in this current year we have also increased the amount of quota in the inshore pool by around 70%, with the additional quota that we had as a result of leaving the European Union.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
This week, I convened a roundtable discussion with leading members of our food and drinks sector. To the surprise of many, I am sure, the Prime Minister’s having his cake and eating it and stuffing suitcases full of booze were unfortunately not quite enough to sustain the industry through these difficult times.
What is clear is that the sector is struggling: the impact of inflation, the CO2 crisis, the rocketing of feed, fuel and energy bills, and labour shortages are all increasing costs, reducing profit and ultimately pushing prices up for consumers. Those same businesses will be listening closely today. On behalf of those people, may I ask the Secretary of State what the plan is to control inflation, tackle fuel and energy costs, address labour shortages, solve the CO2 crisis, and finally back British business?
George Eustice
I, too, regularly meet food industry representatives—indeed, yesterday I met the retailers, and I meet manufacturers as well. The food industry is Britain’s largest manufacturer: bigger than aerospace and automotive combined. It employs millions of people and brings prosperity to every part of our United Kingdom. There are some cost pressures at the moment, caused by gas prices, which my ministerial colleagues elsewhere are looking at, but we continue to work closely with the industry to manage its challenges.
Jim McMahon
Essentially there is no plan, and the lack of a plan is a theme running through the Government.
Let us move on to sewage discharge. Yesterday, when asked what could be done to reduce sewage discharges in the River Wye, the Prime Minister suggested putting on his trunks and going for a swim. While it might be normal for him, most of us do not like being up to our necks in raw sewage. Yet investment is down, water companies are £50 billion in debt, private investment has not followed, and the only things that are up are sewage discharges and shareholder profits. That is hardly surprising when over the past decade the Environment Agency has had its grant cut from £120 million to £40 million, reducing its ability to investigate and enforce. What is the Secretary of State going to do to give everybody the right to clean water? And please, don’t say you’ll join the Prime Minister.
George Eustice
If the hon. Gentleman had followed some of the debate on the Environment Act 2021, he would know that this House has put in place legal obligations to reduce storm overflows in particular. That follows up on the Government’s decision last summer to put that in their policy statement to Ofwat. We have also doubled spending on catchment sensitive farming and have increased the number of Environment Agency inspectors by 50.
Mr Speaker
We have only five minutes left. We really have to think about Back Benchers.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
George Eustice
We have already planned this year to open the sustainable farming incentive. It will be open to all farmers and universally available. We have also increased the payment rates for countryside stewardship. Half of farmers are already in that, and we are encouraging the other half to join, too.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
George Eustice
Our food security review, which was published before Christmas, showed that we have the lowest spending on food as a percentage of household income anywhere in Europe. Overall, food prices in this country are stable and spending on food is low. However, there are challenges for certain individuals. That is why we have things like the holiday funding.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
George Eustice
Yes, we have a new £100 million fund to support a range of activities, including port infrastructure as well as upgrades to vessels.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
George Eustice
The Environment Agency brought a prosecution against Southern Water in respect of its failures, and it received, as the hon. Gentleman will know, a record fine of £90 million.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
Yes, I will. As my hon. Friend knows, I have been up to his part of the world and have looked at some of the challenges there. We need to do more, we will do more, and we will keep monitoring until we get it right.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Government’s recent decision to authorise a neonic, bee-destroying pesticide runs contrary to the advice of both the Health and Safety Executive and the Government’s expert committee on pesticides. How on earth is this decision compatible with the Government’s legal requirement to halt species loss by 2030, and will the Secretary of State look again at this particular decision?
George Eustice
I addressed this issue earlier. The chief scientist gave some analysis, along with others. We took a decision firmly based on the science. Twelve other EU countries have done so, too.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I cannot comment on matters in that specific plan, but I congratulate my hon. Friend on that work, as our wildflower meadows are so precious. There are only 3% left, and we need to get them protected and communities looking after them as much as possible.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Government promised a White Paper in response to the national food strategy within six months of its publication. That time runs out at the end of this month, so when are we going to see it? Please do not say “shortly” or “soon”.
George Eustice
We are working on it and it will be published in due course.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
In this “tree-bilee” year, the Environment Minister knows about Gloucester’s huge new project, Hempsted woods, where I hope every child will have the chance to plant a tree. She herself kindly planted an apple tree there last year. Does she agree that it would be very helpful if the Department could publish a crib sheet about how everybody in the country can access new trees to plant this year, as soon as possible?
Rebecca Pow
It was a pleasure to plant that tree; I hope it is doing well. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his tremendous work with the whole team in Gloucester to plant that huge wood. It will make such a difference to our tree target. It is a great idea of his to send out a list of all the myriad grants that are available for tree planting.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The Church estimates that over the next five years at least £1.14 billion of maintenance and repairs are needed for churches and cathedrals. The Church is very grateful that 550 churches and cathedrals have already benefited from the culture recovery fund, but there remains an urgent need for predictable and sustainable sources of funding, which enable us to keep skilled builders and craft people in work.
Jerome Mayhew
Last week, the listed places of worship grant scheme was extended until 2025, which I welcome. It is absolutely crucial for churches such as All Saints in Beighton, in my constituency, and the repair work on its thatched roof. Almost half the grade I listed buildings in this country are church buildings. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that that scheme should be now made permanent?
Andrew Selous
I am delighted that the thatched roof of All Saints, Beighton, has been fixed and that the listed places of worship grant scheme, which covers the VAT cost, was helpful in achieving that. The Government have extended that scheme for the next three years, but in order for churches and cathedrals to continue contributing some £50 billion a year to national wellbeing, my hon. Friend is right that we will need to put these repairs on a sustainable footing. That is why I will be copying this exchange to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Andrew Selous
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have established the racial justice commission, chaired by my good friend Lord Boateng, in order to help the Church of England become more like the nation it serves. The commission is making good progress and will report in 2023. It updates the archbishops every six months on progress.
Marsha De Cordova
Last April, the Church’s anti-racism taskforce published its final report that included a series of recommendations, including around participation and representation. However, I am concerned by a report by the Archbishops’ Council on racial justice, published this week, that rejects the recommendation to fund racial justice officers in each diocese and says the recommendations about shortlisting candidates from a black or ethnic minority background are unlikely to be met. That is worrying and unacceptable, as without proper commitment and investment to increase representation, there will be more decades of inaction. Does the Commissioner agree with me that there is role to play to ensure that there are adequate resources to assist the Church in achieving greater representation?
Andrew Selous
I agree with the hon. Lady that the Church has not done well enough in this area in the past, but I am sure that she will be pleased to learn that, on Tuesday this week, two UK minority ethnic bishops were consecrated at St Paul’s Cathedral. There are plans for more UK minority ethnic clergy to take part in House of Bishops meetings. I am sure that, like me, she will also be encouraged by the work of the Peter Stream in several dioceses, which has had great results in broadening both the ethnic and social diversity of those seeking ordination.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
It gives me very great pleasure, on behalf of the whole of the Church of England, to thank my hon. Friend for her hard work as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, and also to congratulate our mutual friend, David Burrows, on his appointment as her deputy. The Church looks forward to working with her over the coming months to deliver a successful international ministerial meeting in London in July, which will make a real difference to those who suffer because of their faith or belief.
Fiona Bruce
I thank my hon. Friend for those words and welcome the international opportunities to champion freedom of religion or belief at the ministerial conference in London in July, which I am very proud that the UK is hosting, and at the Lambeth conference. Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the motion of the diocese of Lichfield at the forthcoming General Synod that the Church of England not only prays for the persecuted Church, but that its dioceses offer support to link dioceses in parts of the world where the Church is facing persecution, and that the next Lambeth conference addresses the issues of the persecution of Christians?
Andrew Selous
I am only sorry that, unusually, our hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is not in his place to hear my hon. Friend’s praise for his diocese. She is absolutely right that the Church of England’s diocesan links around the globe or Anglican Communion enable that practical help to flow to those who are suffering because of their faith while also developing a greater awareness of this horrendous persecution. I also hope that she will engage directly with the bishops from areas of persecution at the Lambeth conference later this year.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Many of my constituents have written to me to express their concern about the persecution of Christians across the world. In particular, Newcastle boasts a large number of Nigerian diaspora Christians who are concerned following the launch of the Open Doors’ World Watch List. What can local churches do to support the promotion of freedom of religion across the world with the Church of England?
Andrew Selous
I am particularly grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning Nigeria, because the situation there, in many cases, is extremely challenging for Christians. One practical thing that she could do is to get the Open Doors’ World Watch List—the map—and send it to all the churches in her constituency, so that they can put it in their porch to make sure that everyone is aware of the situation. That will help them hold her to account, and we all need to hold the Government and those other countries to account to make sure that freedom of religion and belief holds.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The Church is deeply committed to marriage and will always be there to support every family and household. It is for that reason that both archbishops have launched a commission on families and households to look at what more the Church can do to provide the very best marriage preparation and enrichment and to strengthen family relationships.
Sir Desmond Swayne
What are the very best examples of preparation and enrichment and classes for parents, and what is the Church doing to spread it about?
Andrew Selous
My right hon. Friend asks a typically astute question, and, like any national institution, the Church has examples of outstanding practice, which are not as widely shared as they should be. Although there is excellent work in every diocese, I have been particularly impressed by the pre-marriage course, which is also for couples who are not engaged and want to explore marriage, and the marriage course run by the Reverend Nicky Lee and his wife, Sila. These have been run in 127 countries for more than 1.5 million couples and get tremendous feedback.
Crispin Blunt
I hope that my hon. Friend can give me a one-word answer to my question. Will he confirm what I understand was said by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which is that the Church of England has no objection in principle to suitably qualified humanist celebrants conducting marriages for those couples who so wish to make their vows to each other in that way?
Andrew Selous
I think I can make my hon. Friend at least partially happy
by telling him that the Church of England has no principled objection to humanist marriage. However, I know he will be aware that any move from a premises-based system of marriage registration to a celebrant-based one in England and Wales would not be a minor reform and would affect everyone involved in registering marriages. I recognise that Humanists UK have made alternative suggestions recently; while I can understand his frustration about progress, he will know that it is for the Government, not the Church, to make the ultimate judgment on whether and how the current system should be changed.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
As a former parliamentary churchwarden at St Margaret’s and a lay canon at Wakefield, I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a vibrant and lively Christians in Parliament group where some of the specific issues he has mentioned this morning could be better discussed. Could he get more involved in that and help us to get more hon. Members involved?
Andrew Selous
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am a former chair of Christians in Parliament, which is ably run by our colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter), and I participate in its meetings. I am glad the hon. Gentleman has given it wider publicity in these questions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. I am a great believer in marriage, as you are, Mr Speaker. I have 34 years of married life—my wife has stuck me for 34 years, so well done to her. I know the hon. Gentleman is equally committed to helping people stay married and stay in happy relationships. What is the Church doing to ensure that, where there are breakdowns and grievances, it can step in to help to resolve those issues and make the marriage last?
Andrew Selous
I thank the hon. Gentleman; sadly, some marriages cannot be saved, but he is right that many marriages, with the appropriate help and support, can be saved. All marriages go through difficult times, and he is right to say that that is an important role for the Church of England.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know takes issues of religious persecution very seriously indeed. We know from Open Doors and others of the extreme persecution suffered by Christians in, for example, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Qatar and Egypt.
Caroline Ansell
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. As the newly elected chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Christianity in the Holy Land, I am grateful for the attention of Members of this House, the media and faith leaders across the world on the challenges that Christians face in the Holy Land and in the middle east more widely, as he expressed. I welcome the public assurances from President Herzog and Interior Minister Shaked that Israel will support the Christians of the Holy Land, but may I ask what efforts the Church of England is making to work with Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that Jerusalem—a home to the three Abrahamic faith communities and, indeed, the religious capital of the world—is a place where Christian individuals and institutions can continue to flourish and thrive?
Andrew Selous
I know that, like me, my hon. Friend is deeply conscious that this is Holocaust Memorial Day. I can tell her that there are many strong relationships enabling the church to support Christians and churches in Jerusalem, the land where Jesus walked. Last year, the diocese of Southwark signed a covenant agreement with the diocese of Jerusalem, opening new opportunities for pilgrimage, prayer and mutual support. The Bishop of Southwark goes to Jerusalem often and is in regular contact with our consul general and with Ministers in London about what can be done to ensure the peace of Jerusalem so that all faiths can flourish in the Holy Land.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Andrew Selous
The Church of England’s doctrine defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and changing doctrine is a serious matter that involves humbly seeking to discern the mind of God. The Church of England is engaging intensively with questions of identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage in ways that have not been done before. That process of learning, listening and discernment among clergy and congregations is enabling a deep engagement with difference and diversity as part of the Church’s discernment of a way forward.
Dame Diana Johnson
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member said about supporting families and households, because in Wales and Scotland, there are blessings for lesbian and gay marriages, which shows the Churches’ acceptance and understanding of all households and families. It would be good for the Church of England to introduce a Measure on this issue sooner rather than later, as we know that it often moves at a glacial pace, as it did on ordaining women and having women bishops. This would be a welcome change for the Church to make.
Andrew Selous
I thank the right hon. Lady for the question. What she suggests may be welcome, but the Church needs to discern what it believes the true teachings of the gospels to be. In order to determine where God is leading us, we are engaged in one of the most extensive exercises in consultation, learning and prayer carried out by the Church in recent decades. Both the destination and how we get there are important.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Electoral Commission estimates that its work connected to the Bill will cost £16 million over the next five years. The estimate is based on its understanding of the Government’s implementation planning. The commission’s annual funding is subject to approval by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission through the main and supplementary estimates process. The commission has not made its own estimate of the cost to others of the changes set out in the Bill. It has, however, highlighted that it is essential that implementation of the changes be appropriately funded if we are to ensure that the package of measures is realistically deliverable by electoral administrators.
Owen Thompson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer. Scottish National party Members have raised moral and democratic concerns about the Elections Bill many times, but those concerns are not separate from the financial considerations. For instance, voter identity provisions may carry extra administrative and enforcement costs. Will the commission take those indirect financial implications into account, looking forward?
Christian Matheson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. If he has views on the need for increased expenditure, he can raise them with the commission at the next meeting of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I remind him and the House, however, that it is not the commission’s responsibility to justify the cost arising from legislation. In this case, it is the Government’s responsibility as the sponsors of the legislation.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is a serious and well informed person. Is the Bill, and the change in funding that is necessary, an opportunity to split the role of the Electoral Commission? It could concentrate on the administration of all elections, and a separate, independent body could deal with enforcement. That way, we would feel there was a separation of powers.
Christian Matheson
The hon. Gentleman is always looking for the right opportunity to achieve that, and to challenge the position of the Electoral Commission. Obviously, the Government have not taken that decision. They have listened to, for example, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and indeed our Committee on Standards. The Electoral Commission has a new chairperson, and a new chief executive is being appointed. I know the hon. Gentleman has concerns about its activities, but let us give the new leadership team a chance to bed in.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The Church of England runs 4,600 schools, including a quarter of all primary schools and two thirds of all small rural schools in the country. We are also a major provider of teacher training, and we work hard to ensure that all our children flourish, whether in our large urban schools, or in small rural ones such as those in North Devon.
Selaine Saxby
Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the many Church schools in North Devon, and will he say what steps are being taken by the Church to help pupils in these schools to catch up post covid, and to support their mental wellbeing?
Andrew Selous
I most certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking all the Church schools in North Devon for the fantastic work that they have done throughout the pandemic. We are supporting the leaders of all our schools in helping children to catch up on lost learning, and in promoting the wellbeing and mental health of pupils —through our trauma awareness training, for example.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the House of Commons food outlets serve 650 Members of Parliament, 420 members of the press lobby, and about another 17,000 passholders. It is the intention of all catering outlets, wherever possible, to buy British, and to serve seasonal vegetables, British meat and dairy, and, of course, the Champagne—or its equivalent—made in Hampshire and other parts of the United Kingdom, as well as local beers. However, those of course were not available during periods of lockdown, when no alcohol was served on the premises.
John Spellar
I thank the hon. Member for that helpful answer. May I urge him to take a proactive role and invite Members of Parliament to put forward local British suppliers so that we can benefit British businesses and British workers? Officials have no longer got the excuse of the EU to hide behind—it was never a real one anyway—so will they get on with that and have an active campaign?
Sir Charles Walker
Since we banished the EU from these shores, we have been just delighting in buying British. But there is more to do, and the right hon. Member needs to play an important part in that campaign. In the next few weeks, I expect him to lead a delegation to the Administration Committee of interested Members from across the United Kingdom, including Scotland and Wales—oh, and Jim Shannon—to demand that more is done. We shall try to meet those demands.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I come to the business question, I understand that a Member has this morning stated in a media appearance that he has been granted an urgent question today. That is not the case. So, Sky News, please take down the notice that there is a UQ. No UQs have been granted at all.
I remind Members that, to be considered, UQ applications need to be tabled by the deadline. This Member was more than 30 minutes late in putting in a UQ application. All right hon. and hon. Members should take care to be accurate in their comments about business in the Chamber. They certainly should not announce that urgent questions have been granted when that is not the case. I remind Members, too, that Erskine May states:
“Neither the submission of an urgent question nor its subsequent rejection by the Speaker should…be…referred to”—
and certainly not on the media. I would be grateful if all Members followed that guidance. I am sure that the Member concerned will be heading to my office to apologise as a matter of urgency.
Business of the House
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I ask the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 31 January will include:
Monday 31 January—Motion to approve a ways and means resolution relating to the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Dormant Assets Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 1 February—Opposition day (11th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Wednesday 2 February—Remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Thursday 3 February—General debate on the effectiveness of the Government’s education catch-up and mental health recovery programmes, followed by general debate on the Committee on Standards’ review of the code of conduct for Members of Parliament. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 4 February—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 7 February will include:
Monday 7 February—Debate on motions to approve the Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 2022 and the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2022, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill.
Anneliese Dodds
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. Today is Holocaust Memorial Day, and this afternoon’s crucial debate will allow Members across the House to mark the day. I pay tribute to all the survivors for their bravery and generosity in reliving enormously traumatic personal experiences to educate us. I also thank the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for all the work they do to ensure that such atrocities never happen again.
It started with the Prime Minister saying that no rules were broken. Then he said that he did not know about any parties. Then he said that he did not know whether he was there or not. Then he remembered that he was there but did not know that it was a party. Then he said that nobody warned him that the party was against the rules. This week, we were told that he was ambushed by a cake, although on the media earlier this week the Leader of the House said that he needs to wait for an internal inquiry to establish whether the Prime Minister ate the cake or not. Can the Leader of the House explain how we have gone from being told that no rules were broken to the Government being the subject of a police investigation? We do not yet know when the long-awaited internal inquiry into rule-breaking at No. 10 will be published, but can he give assurances that when the report is published, it will be published in full, and that Members will have advance sight of it before any statement is made in the House?
While the Prime Minister is desperately trying to shore up his own position and the Leader of the House is busy threatening Back Benchers with an early general election, working families are hit with steep rises to energy prices, falling low wages and Tory tax rises. Labour’s fully funded measures would save households £200 a year from their energy bills, with an extra £400 for families and pensioners who need it most. The Government chose not to support that plan. Can we have a statement on why the Government are choosing to look the other way and ignore the cost of living crisis faced by millions of people?
An estimated £4.3 billion of fraudulent loans will not be recovered, and yesterday, during an urgent question, a Government Minister refused to commit to bring forward a long-overdue economic crime Bill to tackle fraud and corruption. Given that a different Government Minister resigned on Monday in protest at the Government’s failure on this, can the Leader of the House confirm when it became Government policy to waste billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and hand it to fraudsters?
As the Leader of the House will be aware, four disabled people took the Government to court this week on the national disability strategy consultation process. In a ruling that will come as a surprise to absolutely no one, the High Court found that the strategy is unlawful. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has not made a statement to the House following this ruling, so will the Leader of the House provide Government time to debate this critically important strategy?
Last year, in December, the Prime Minister said that it was “complete nonsense” that he personally intervened in decision making over whether to evacuate Nowzad staff and animals from Afghanistan. However, emails released yesterday appear to suggest that the Prime Minister did intervene and overruled the Defence Secretary, so can the Leader of the House explain what happened?
This Government put their own self-interest above the national interest. They have completely lost any grip, and working people are paying the price.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I welcome the hon. Lady to business questions and give my thanks to the usual shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for letting me know that she was unable to be here today.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight Holocaust Memorial Day. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench team for not putting in any urgent questions today, and I am glad that there are no statements either so that we can devote the whole time to debating Holocaust Memorial Day, which is, I think, what the whole House wanted.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am glad to see the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee nodding. It is a truly important day. I agree entirely with the hon. Lady that education is so important. The more people know and understand the horrors that went before, the more likely it is that such horrors will be avoided in future.
The hon. Lady then asked a wide range of questions about Government policy. May I say how pleased I am that she has finally moved off cake? It has seemed to me over the past few weeks that all the Opposition could ever talk about was cake—whether we have had our cake and eaten it, whether there has been no cake, whether there never was any cake, or what cake there may have been; how it was baked, how many eggs there were in it, whether it was made with margarine or butter, or what type of cake it was: did it have sponge or was it chocolate? All these issues about cake have been an obsession of the Opposition, so I am glad that we are now getting on to some more serious subjects.
The hon. Lady referred to the cost-of-living issue, and here the Government have been extremely active in helping people, including families. The national living wage will rise to £9.50 from April, which will mean an extra £1,000 a year for full-time workers. Nearly 2 million families will receive an extra £1,000 a year through our cut in the universal credit taper and increased work allowances. There is also a £140 rebate on the energy bills of 2.2 million low-income households this winter, and there are seasonal cold weather payments of an extra £25 a week for up to 4 million people during sustained colder periods.
However, the key to ensuring that the economy works lies in the steps taken by the Government during the pandemic, when they introduced the furlough scheme and bounce back business loans to ensure that the structures of the economy survived it. That is fundamental to why we now have the highest payroll employment in our history, the lowest recorded youth unemployment in our history, and the economy back to where it was before the pandemic. So the real question on the cost of living is whether the economy is being managed well, and the answer to that is “Yes, it is, because of the decisions that this Government made.”
The hon. Lady then raised the issue of fraud, and the £4.3 billion that has come out of the covid supplies. That is about 1% of the amount of money that British taxpayers provided. However, the Government have already stopped or recovered £743 million in overclaimed furlough grants. We have prevented £2.2 billion in fraud from our bounce back loan scheme, and our Taxpayer Protection Taskforce is set to recover an additional £1 billion; its investigations are under way. The Government take this seriously, but if we want to know who are the real experts in wasting taxpayers’ money, it is the socialists. When they were in opposition, what happened to the NHS computer system? How many billions were frittered away through their irresponsible approach to taxpayers’ money?
The hon. Lady raised the national disability strategy and yesterday’s court judgment. The DWP has sought permission to appeal against that judgment, which is solely about technicalities and the requirements to consult. The DWP has engaged with disabled people, disabled people’s organisations, carers and others as part of the national disability strategy, which is one of the broadest packages of real, practical action put together so far to improve the lives of disabled people in relation to jobs, housing, transport, education, shopping, culture, justice, public services, data and evidence. There is a real push to help disabled people.
Then we come on to the Afghanistan animals. The Ministry of Defence got 15,000 people out of Afghanistan in an extraordinary and amazingly successful operation, but again the Opposition are dealing with the fripperies and the trivia, not with the really big picture. All they care about are cake and animals, whereas we are getting on with the important business of government.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
Families in west Berkshire have told me about waits of up to two years to receive diagnoses of either autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder for their children, often at a catastrophic cost to their educational and social development. However, I understand that the problem extends much more widely than west Berkshire. May I invite my right hon. Friend to make Government time available for a debate to discuss the provision of child and adolescent mental health services?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank my hon. Friend both for her question and for her campaigning on children’s mental health issues, which are of great importance and, I think, recognised as such across the House.
The Government have announced that £17 million of extra spending to build on the existing mental health support will be available in education settings, including £7 million for the wellbeing for education recovery programme and £9.5 million to fund training for mental health leaders in about a third of all state schools and colleges. That is on top of the £79 million to boost mental health support for children and young people that was announced in March. NHS England has consulted on the potential to introduce five new waiting time standards, and a response will be published in due course. I think it is accepted that there is a problem, and steps are being taken to tackle it.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Let me first echo and support the comments of the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) about Holocaust Memorial Day. I think we are all looking forward to this afternoon’s debate.
May we have a debate about the constitution, just to ascertain whether we are on our way to becoming a republic? This view has a rather odd new supporter and champion in the guise of the Leader of the House himself. In another disastrous performance on Newsnight, he claimed that a change of leader requires a general election because the UK is now effectively a “presidential system”. Well, somebody should notify Her Majesty the Queen—but perhaps not the right hon. Gentleman himself, after that disastrous Prorogation business.
Most of us suspect that this was just some sort of clumsy attempt to get recalcitrant Tory Back Benchers on board—the threat of a general election in which large swathes of them would lose their seats—rather than a real attempt to redefine the constitution of the UK, but could we please have a statement from the Leader of the House, just for the comedy value? Last week, he was flattering the precious Union; this week he is reinventing the republic of the UK. He must be President Johnson’s most inept spokesperson when it comes to these matters.
I am beginning to think it would be a matter of duty and mercy for the House services to provide some sort of counselling services for Tory Back Benchers. What they have been through is almost unendurable. There has been Owen Paterson, cash for access, cash for honours, partygate, cakegate, Operation Big Dog and Operation Put Big Dog Down. Now they are biting their nails to the stumps waiting for the report so that they can at least make up their minds about the Prime Minister. It is like some sort of dysfunctional “Waiting for Godot”. But we are here to help: if confessional is required, Tory Members should come and speak to some of us in the Opposition. We are here to help out; we could help them fix some of their woes. Who would be a Tory Back Bencher just now? But help is out there.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am so grateful that the hon. Gentleman is his normal cheerful self. He raised the interesting constitutional point of the dissolution of Parliament under a new leader. I actually raised that point on Second Reading of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 on 13 September 2010 because, prior to the Act coming in, it was becoming apparent that an election did need to follow from a new leader and that what had happened to Gordon Brown when he was Prime Minister was illustrative of that. Our constitution evolves and moves, not necessarily by legislation but by the way conventions develop, and it was clearly developing before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. I thought at the time that the Act would prevent such an election, but in fact it had the reverse effect—it accelerated it. When we changed Prime Minister in 2016, an election followed within a few months; when we changed Prime Minister in 2019, once again an election followed within a few months. That is important to an understanding of the constitution: norms arise that become accepted and understood, without any need for a formal legislative process. That has been the way that our written but uncodified constitution has developed and evolved.
Then the question is raised as to whether we have become a more presidential system. Being a more presidential system does not override the need—the essential need—for a constitutional monarchy. It means that the power of the monarchy has evolved and been devolved to the Prime Minister, and we have seen this happen over centuries. The exercise of the prerogative, now done on the formal advice of the Prime Minister, shows that most of the powers that would be vested in a President are vested de facto if not de jure in the Prime Minister. So if we are looking at how the constitution has evolved, it is clear that a Prime Minister has a personal mandate much more than a party mandate and that that mandate comes from voters, who would expect to renew it in the event of a change of Prime Minister. That is why I think we have evolved to the situation where a new Prime Minister would want a new election.
I am delighted that the SNP wishes to discuss my favourite pet subject, which is the evolution of the constitution, and it is something we should debate more and more, but I look to the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee for his kindness.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
One of the Government’s levelling-up initiatives has been the establishment of freeports. The Humber ports have been granted freeport status, but we really need to get motoring. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a debate or a statement so that we can see how the Government’s initiative is evolving?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I agree with him. I think that freeports are going to be one of the real advantages and benefits of having left the European Union. The National Insurance Contributions Bill, which is passing through Parliament at the moment, is the main Act of Parliament that will facilitate an ambitious programme of freeports, so I am glad to say that it is going ahead and legislative action is taking place.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.
Ian Mearns
I reassure the Leader of the House that, if at some time in the future he should be on the Back Benches, I would very much welcome an application from him for a debate on the evolution of the constitution—but I am sure that will not be for some time.
Can I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the business managers in the House for helping us by devoting the remainder of today to the important debate on and commemoration of Holocaust Memorial Day? It is so important to so many of our constituents, and to mine in particular in the constituency of Gateshead, which has a very large Haredi Jewish community.
On 10 February, we are hoping to put on two debates—on friendship and co-operation with Taiwan, which would be rather timely given the current circumstances, and on dementia research in the United Kingdom, which is also extremely timely given what we have been going through for the last couple of years.
On advance notice of applications already received for particular debates, I have already mentioned an application for a Welsh affairs debate to commemorate St David’s Day on 1 March, which would be on 3 March if we can get the time, and we already have on the stocks an application for a debate on International Women’s Day, which falls on 8 March, so Thursday 10 March would be appropriate if we could get that.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I am glad I am storing up credit for applications for future debates when it is not necessarily as easy as it may be now for me to see what the business of the House is going to be.
I completely understand the importance of the debates the hon. Gentleman raises, especially in relation to Taiwan, St David’s Day, dementia research and International Women’s Day. It is extremely helpful of him to give me advance notice, as it is of course for Members to give him advance notice of particular dates that are coming up. However, I am sorry that nobody, as far as I am aware, has asked for a debate on 30 January to commemorate, of course, the execution—the murder—of Charles, King and Martyr.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
On 5 January, former Labour councillor Lord Ahmed of Rotherham was found guilty of serious sexual assault against a young boy and guilty of twice attempting to rape a girl. Although he is no longer a member of the other place, he still maintains and uses his title of peer of the realm, and only an Act of Parliament can strip him of his letters patent. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me, and the 2,000 people from Rother Valley who have signed my petition, that we should have a debate in Government time on a Bill to strip him of his title, and to send a clear message that we will never tolerate any vile monsters who are guilty of such heinous crimes against children? They should never have such prestigious titles.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The last Bill of attainder, as far as I am aware, was in 1798, although there was the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 to strip royal dukes of their titles when they were traitors. My hon. Friend is right to say that it requires legislation to take away a peerage, although I do slightly wonder what satisfaction it will give to the person to whom he refers to be called “My Lord” while he is serving time at Her Majesty’s expense. The disgrace he has felt means that his title has become, I hope, wormwood.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I know the Leader of the House loves patronising Opposition MPs, but to be honest I have been patronised by much more illustrious people than him.
Can we have a debate, because the Leader of the House did not take this question seriously earlier, about the evacuation from Afghanistan? Many of us still have constituents and friends of constituents who are stuck in Afghanistan in very dangerous and frightening situations, and some of us are concerned that the process of deciding the priorities last summer was not as it should have been. In fact, it was so chaotic—perhaps for good reasons, but perhaps for bad reasons as well—that bad decisions were made.
If we had such a debate, we would also have the opportunity to clear up the fact that the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he took absolutely no role in the decision to evacuate Pen Farthing and Nowzad, whereas the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary wrote a letter in which she made it clear that she was involved as his PPS. We now have in the Foreign Affairs Committee an email from one of Lord Goldsmith’s officials, so a member of the Foreign Office team, saying that the Prime Minister had authorised this. We need to get to the bottom of this. There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But it may be guilty as charged.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Under Operation Pitting, our armed forces and civil service worked around the clock to evacuate 15,000 people, including around 8,300 British nationals and 5,000 people through the Afghan relocations policy. This was an incredibly successful and pressurised operation, and our armed forces, once again, showed what amazing things they can do when called upon to do them. The hon. Gentleman is fussing about a few animals. I think that shows the level of seriousness that he characteristically brings to today’s debate.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I very much welcome the Government’s excellent vaccination roll-out programme in my constituency, with a vaccination centre in Medway, which all three Medway MPs campaigned for. Linked to that, my constituents very much welcome the £12 billion extra NHS investment year on year. May we have a debate on the Floor of the House about support for hospitals? My hospital in Medway serves half a million people. It needs extra resources in the short term and in the long term in Medway we need a full brand new hospital to serve the needs of our constituents. I know that the Government are committed to supporting the national health service.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and commend him for his brilliant campaigning work locally in his constituency, and for the remarkable work he has done to protect freedom of religion around the world. The Government have used, and are using, taxpayers’ money to support the health service. In September, we announced an additional £36 billion for health and social care over the next three years, which interestingly was opposed by the party opposite. We are doing things to catch up with the backlog that has come through covid. For example, there will be 9 million extra scans and an extra £8 billion to tackle the elective backlog. He lobbies for a new hospital. I will pass on his lobbying to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Given the views that the Leader of the House has just expressed about the need for a snap general election following a change of Prime Minister, can he confirm that the Government are seriously intending to bring forward such a Bill to make that change?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. What I was saying was that the constitution evolves, and the norms and conventions of the constitution are not normally set down in legislation, although some of them are.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
May we have a debate on the wonderful sport of rugby league?
Jason McCartney
It is the rugby league world cup this autumn, and the new Super League season kicks off in a fortnight, with some of the games for the first time on free-to-air television—they will be on Channel 4—which will be great for widening the notoriety of the sport. Such a debate would also give me an opportunity to express my deep disappointment that Labour-run Kirklees has reneged on an agreement to host the National Rugby League Museum in the birthplace of rugby league, the George Hotel in Huddersfield.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think we should have a special debate every week on the failures of socialist councils, to which Conservative Members would massively subscribed. Labour Members would probably decide to work from home that day, which is something they enjoy. I cannot claim to be an expert on rugby league. The only sport I know anything much about is cricket, which may be rather embarrassing, under current circumstances, to confess to. But I thought I heard—whether the stenographers of Hansard did, I do not know—a modest “Hear, hear” emanate from the Chair during my hon. Friend’s question. Assuming that it did not come from the Clerks, who tend not to comment on our business, I think that an application for an Adjournment debate may be very favourably looked upon.
Mr Speaker
That is good news. It is Stefan Ratchford’s testimonial on Saturday, when Warrington play Wigan, and I will be there.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Further to Mr Speaker’s announcement that there will be no statements today, that does rather leave unanswered the question that many members of the public want to know the answer to: the whereabouts of Sue Gray’s urgent and very important report into the numerous reported events and parties that No. 10 took part in during lockdown. The Prime Minister has been known to hide in a fridge to avoid questions, so can the Leader of the House confirm that there will be no hiding from the outcome of this report—that it will be published in full, and that we will be granted time in this House to scrutinise its findings in full?
Mr Rees-Mogg
First, it is wrong of Members of this House to pressurise the independent investigator over the speed of her report. It would be wrong for the Government to put pressure on her, and it is wrong of the Opposition to do so. Sue Gray is doing it independently, and she must be given the time that she needs to do it. However, of course, as the Prime Minister has said, when the report is released, he will come to the House and make a statement, and will be open to questions. That is the proper parliamentary procedure.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Several of my constituents have made applications for the protective security grant and were successful, but as a result of the pandemic, some of those works have not been completed and the funding has lapsed. Can a Home Office Minister come before the House to explain to my constituents how they can revive those applications and ensure that their synagogues, churches and other places of worship and religion are adequately protected?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this question, because it is very important to provide the necessary protections for places of worship that may need some level of protection. Work is continuing to safeguard places of worship, including synagogues and mosques, with £3.5 million allocated for the places of worship security grant this year. Of course, if there are specific issues with grants that have lapsed because of covid, if he will give me the details, I will happily take them up with the Home Secretary.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
As the cost of living continues to spiral, it is ever more important that retired miners receive all of the money in their pension scheme, and that the Government stop profiting from 50% of the surplus, which totals £4.4 billion to date. Can I ask the Leader of the House to facilitate a meeting between the scheme’s trustees and the new Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Minister?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I have said before in this House, I very much view it as my role to facilitate meetings between hon. Members and Ministers, so I will obviously take up the request that the hon. Lady has made.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I am sure the Leader of the House agrees with me and the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) that Parliament should be showcasing the best of British food and drink to the world. In Rushcliffe, we have the brilliant, award-winning Ruddy Fine gin, which uses local ingredients from the village of Ruddington. I want all colleagues to have the opportunity to enjoy a Ruddy Fine gin and tonic, and to have the chance to get their local producers stocked here on the estate, but unfortunately at the moment, the House authorities will only consider guest beers. Will the Leader of the House work with me to find a solution to this issue, and see if we can get Ruddy Fine gin and other best of British producers on the menus here in the weeks ahead? Can we also have a debate in Government time to discuss what more this House can do to promote British producers?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is on to something here. It is a pity that the House does not have guest gins as well, but why leave it at a gin and tonic? Why not have a gin martini, a gin and it, a pink gin, or a whole variety of gin cocktails? We could even put gin into sweets and have a gin Opal Fruit or something like that, to give people a little taster—a little sampler—of gin. I am all in favour of Ruddy Fine gin: perhaps I should provide a tincture to visitors to my office in future. If it is not in the bars of the House of Commons, perhaps the Leader of the Home Secretary should get a small supply for people who need to see him on important business.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Yesterday, a colliery in south Wales was given permission to mine a further 40 million tonnes of coal. The Government appear to have abdicated responsibility for the decision, although in reply to my written questions I have learned of discussions and correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Government about the licence. A promised copy of that correspondence has still not found its way into the Library nine days after it was promised. Real climate leaders do not issue new fossil fuel licences, nor do they pass the buck if someone else is trying to do that on their watch. Will the Leader of the House use his best offices to ensure a copy of that correspondence is put into the Library as soon as possible, and can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of leaving new fossil fuels in the ground, as the science demands?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Of course, the Government will follow the normal requirements of business, and if a document has been referred to at the Dispatch Box by a Minister it will be put in the Library in due course—that is routine—but I do not know the status of the document she refers to. Net zero is by 2050. We are not at 2050 yet. We are going to need to have fossil fuels for the interim period and we are going to need coal for things like heritage railways and so on. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that we take some coal out of the ground. I cannot see why it is better to import it from abroad, rather than to get it from our own green and pleasant land.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Yesterday, British Indians celebrated Republic Day, a very joyous occasion. I am sure my right hon. Friend, as a keen monarchist, would not necessarily celebrate Republic Day. Equally, last week we commemorated a forgotten genocide, namely the exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir valley. People were forced out of what had been their ancestral homes for thousands of years at the point of a gun, with the cry, “Leave, die or convert.” May we have a debate in Government time to commemorate that terrible act, which is now being recognised in India as a genocide?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right about my queasiness about celebrating republic days as a general rule. I note how many countries around the world celebrate their annual day when they get out of the grasp of our great country, and there is a certain poignancy to it. However, I wish India well in this its 75th year of independence. It is a crucial and growingly important ally for the United Kingdom. We agreed a comprehensive strategic partnership in May 2021 and a 2030 road map, which will benefit people across both countries and support regional and global security and prosperity. Obviously, Her Majesty’s Government condemn any instances of discrimination or violence because of religion or belief. We continue to encourage dialogue between India and Pakistan to find a lasting diplomatic solution on Kashmir to maintain regional stability, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
High streets in constituencies like mine are being broken up by an ever-increasing number of gambling venues. Yet another bank branch on Hertford Road, which closed only 12 months ago, has now been replaced by a gambling venue. Residents and local councils are powerless to stop this happening. Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Government’s review of the Gambling Act 2005, which was due in October last year, will be published? Will he allow a debate in Government time on the findings of that review?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government are committed to supporting high streets and have provided £2.4 billion of taxpayers’ money for 101 towns deals. It is obviously important that there is a variety of activity going on along high streets to ensure that people wish to go there and that commerce takes place. I am glad to tell the hon. Lady that a key part of the levelling up White Paper will be about how we encourage levelling up, which will inevitably boost high streets. The White Paper will be coming forward in due course.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Approximately three years after submitting the Greater Manchester clean air plan outline business case, the Mayor of Greater Manchester has called for changes to his own plan. However, the only change needed is to scrap the scheme in its entirety. Based on flawed analysis and data, we are in the ludicrous position that the most up-to-date air monitoring data for the borough of Bury show no breaches of legal air quality limits anywhere, yet this draconian scheme is still scheduled to begin in May. Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate to allow for much-needed scrutiny of this tax on jobs?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very concerned about the Labour Mayor’s tax on jobs, which my hon. Friend raised with me last week. As I said earlier, we could have a session every week discussing how the Labour party attacks local businesses and, particularly, wages war against the motorist. The motorist always seems to be in the crosshairs of the socialist, because they do not like the independence that motoring brings and the freedom and liberty that we get by being able to drive. My hon. Friend raises an important point and the Mayor of Manchester would be well advised to listen to him.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
The illegal use of off-road motorbikes is becoming an ever-increasing problem on the streets in my constituency, with more and more constituents contacting me about the matter. Residents tell me that they feel intimidated, threatened and fearful for their safety, while the police say that they face huge difficulties when trying to pursue and identify suspects and seize off-road motorbikes that are being used illegally. Can we therefore have a debate or statement on what steps the Government are taking to tackle this increasing blight on our communities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing this issue to the attention of the House, because it is clearly a serious problem. The police saying that policing is difficult is not a very satisfactory answer from them. Of course policing is difficult; that is why we have a police force, and we have taken on an extra 11,000 police officers. I encourage her, though I doubt she needs much encouragement, to pressurise her local police force to actually get on and do its job and enforce the law.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
On Holocaust Memorial Day, we think about some of the groups that continue to be persecuted across the world. Last weekend, I had the great pleasure of visiting the Cox’s Bazar Rohingya Muslim refugee camp; it was an incredibly emotional experience. I spoke to two child refugees and said to them, “What’s your wish? What’s your dream?” It was very simple—they simply wanted to return home. They did not want to go anywhere else. They just wanted to go home and they wanted to live free from persecution. I know that the Government have taken steps to aid the Bangladeshi Government, but could we have a debate in Government time about what further steps this country can take to aid and facilitate the safe return of Rohingya Muslims to their homeland?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government very much share his view and have great concern about the increasing violence across Burma. As the first anniversary of the coup approaches, Her Majesty’s Government are working with partners to push for an end to violence, unhindered humanitarian access and the importance of respect for human rights and the protection of civilians. In Burma’s Rakhine state, we have provided over £44 million to all communities since 2017, including over £25 million for the Rohingya. Since 2017, we have committed over £320 million and supported about 1 million refugees in Bangladesh. Any Rohingya returns to Rakhine must be voluntary, safe, dignified and in line with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees principles, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are working on this and will continue to do so.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Yesterday, the Leader of the House said that, in his experience,
“very few people do lie in public life”.
Very few people indulge in burglary, but the law is there to deal with them. My party has long-standing proposals to strengthen Parliament’s ability to hold politicians to account when they deliberately lie, so can we have an early debate on lying in politics?
Mr Rees-Mogg
What people say politically is a matter of continual political debate; it is what we do in this Chamber. People have different opinions one way or another and when they disagree, they often make accusations that are more aggressive than the facts bear out.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
In recent years, clinical services have been reconfigured across my hospital trust, from Eastbourne and Bexhill to Hastings, but one in four households in Eastbourne do not have a car and public transport options are poor. There is no direct bus service; the journey can mean two buses and take two hours, and funding—financial support for some—is very narrowly defined. I have secured a meeting with the Minister for Health, who has responsibility for hospitals, but may we have a wider debate about access to hospitals? Although I am working with local stakeholders who are engaged in this to improve the situation, the lines of responsibility are not clear.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she says about access to hospitals; the issue of ensuring good hospital services and good transport to them has arisen for many of us in our constituencies. I assure my hon. Friend that the aim of the Government to improve bus services is very strong. More than £5 billion of taxpayers’ money will be spent on buses and cycling during the course of this Parliament. Local authorities have published bus improvement plans, which provide an assessment of existing services in their area, including details of current provision for rural and coastal communities. Action is being taken, but my hon. Friend is right to raise the question about integrating services so that people can get to their hospital appointments.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Family homes are being converted into houses in multiple occupation, and HMOs are increasingly becoming the new homes for many vulnerable people and families. That is a growing concern for my constituents and for other communities across our country. May we have a debate on the issue in Government time?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady raises an issue that will be of importance across the country. It is obviously important that there should be a range of residential accommodation; what is suitable for some individuals will not be so for others, and it is important that there should be a plurality of provision. But HMOs are regulated by law, primarily by local authorities, to ensure that basic standards are maintained. As regards a debate, I point the hon. Lady in the direction of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
May I ask the Leader of the House a question that is actually about the business of the House? Both sides of the House have regularly said that they want there to be statements in this House before things are debated in the media. I understand that the Government do not control when Sue Gray delivers her report, but if she happens to deliver it today I hope the Government will request a statement tomorrow, so that we can discuss the issue in this House before the weekend press does. It seems to me that if we believe in this House having the first say, that is what should happen. Can the Leader of the House advise that if there is a statement to be made tomorrow, it will be announced today?
Mr Rees-Mogg
First of all, I thank my hon. Friend for the very novel approach of actually asking a question about the business of the House during business questions; it is the first time that has happened in a long time.
My view is that every sitting day is a proper sitting day; there are not greater or lesser days of business in this House. The House of Commons sitting is an important constitutional activity and statements made on a Friday are as valid as those made on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. I do not know when the report will be published or when it will be possible to announce a statement, but I am certainly of the view—and I know that you share this view, Mr Speaker—that this House has the right to know first. We should certainly know before our friend Brendan Carlin at the Mail on Sunday gets the information.
Mr Speaker
I should add that I expect all Members to know about the statement with very good time in hand.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I think I owe the Leader of the House an apology. Last week, I was critical of the fact that the former Tory MP, the noble Lord McLoughlin, had been appointed to chair Transport for the North. In his first utterances as chair, he has made it clear that he thinks that the Government’s integrated rail plan is not in the best interests of the north. To quote something that the Leader of the House might enjoy,
“there shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth”.
May we have a debate about Transport for the North, whether the Government plan to listen to what the new chair says and the cut of a third to Transport for the North’s budget?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s charming apology. I refer her back to what I said last week about what a great man my noble Friend Lord McLoughlin is. I think particularly highly of him because—I shall let the House in on a not-particularly-secret secret—it is thanks to the noble Lord that I ever got on to the candidates list for the Conservative party in the first place. He interviewed me during the candidate selection process. When I then arrived in Parliament and kept on voting against the Government while he was Chief Whip, I think he sometimes had reason to doubt his judgment some years earlier.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the use of military planning expertise in civilian settings? Last Friday was the first anniversary of Storm Christoph and the sad destruction of Llanerch bridge in my constituency. This historic, grade 2 listed bridge spanned the River Clwyd, connecting the communities of Tremeirchion and Trefnant. Although Denbighshire County Council is considering options to replace the bridge, the process is complex and time consuming. Meanwhile, local people are left without a key travel route, so military planners could, I am sure, be used to advise on the possibility of a temporary solution.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The provision of defence support to civil authorities in the UK is governed by a robust and well-defined set of principles, set out in a publicly available joint doctrine publication. Those principles ensure that defence assistance is the last rather than first resort when responding to operational challenges. That is essential in order to preserve defence capabilities for defence outputs wherever possible and to reduce the risk of legal challenge from commercial providers, which may otherwise have reasonably expected to tender for contracts from the requesting authority. Defence maintains a standing network of joint regional liaison officers across the country to maintain relationships with civil authorities, provide potential advice on defence assistance, and facilitate requests when they meet the required principles. Any request for defence assistance should be referred to the joint regional liaison office.
I fear that that is not an enormously helpful answer, because the issue is that defence assistance is a last resort. However, I hope that raising the issue in the House will put a little bit of extra pressure on Denbighshire County Council to get on with what it should be doing in relation to the bridge.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Last week I raised with the Leader of the House issues relating to war pensions and the armed forces compensation scheme, and I thank him for his actions in support of the points I made. Since then I have been contacted by dozens of other veterans who find themselves in similar situations. In the past week I have also received from the Ministry of Defence an answer to my written question asking how many veterans are giving up on the process because of the situation in which they find themselves. Unfortunately, the answer was:
“This information is not held in the format requested”,
so the MOD does not even know how many veterans are giving up on the process of trying to get compensation or uplifts to their war pensions as a result of injuries or traumatic experiences from their time serving in the forces. May we have a statement on that and on how we can make sure that the MOD does in fact have accurate records of the situation of all veterans?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It is important that written answers are as helpful as possible. It is always possible to seek the advice of the Table Office—it is exceptionally good at this—to work out how to rephrase a question in order to get around an initially unhelpful answer so as to get the information requested. If the hon. Gentleman is not able to do that, or is not successful in doing so, my office will be more than happy to seek fuller answers than he has got so far.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
On this Holocaust Memorial Day, I would like to pay tribute to my constituent Marika Henriques. Marika was born in Hungary. At the age of nine, she got separated from her family and she became a hidden child during the war. Mercifully, she survived and now she is resident in my constituency. I would like to thank my Front Bench colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and you, Mrusb Speaker, for making so much time available for today’s debate. May I ask that this also happens in subsequent years?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The individual stories of those now in very old age are of the greatest importance and are incredibly moving, whenever Members come across them, and it is so important that they are recorded and restored for posterity. I am glad to say that both last year and this year we were able to avoid any urgent questions or statements on Holocaust Memorial Day. It would be wrong of me to promise that that can be guaranteed in future, but I can assure the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee that as long as I am the Leader of the House, that will certainly be my aim.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
This is the first time I have been here on a Thursday for some time, Mr Speaker, and I have not had a chance to speak of a colleague and friend, Jack Dromey. Like so many of us, he was always here on a Thursday, and we miss him dreadfully. I hope you do not mind me mentioning that.
I ask the Leader of the House to secure a debate quite soon about what sort of democracy we live in. I fear that we are steadily moving towards an Administration that would love to have a presidential system of Government based in No. 10, rather than a parliamentary system, where the power and sovereignty lie in this House. What he has said, as reported in the press, is very worrying indeed.
I must also tell the Leader of the House that, with 12 grandchildren, I get a lot of cake, but I have a secret passion for Eton mess. One of the messes I want cleared up is that, while my constituents think they have an inalienable right to breathe fresh, clean air, increasingly what is emitted from the back end of vehicles is poisoning our children, pregnant women and the elderly. When can we get a real step? Will he support and give time to my Bill, which would force every local authority to audit the air cleanliness in its area every year and report back to this Parliament?
Mr Rees-Mogg
On clean air, one of the real problems has been the scandal of diesel engines, promoted by the last socialist Government, in cahoots with the European Union and the German car manufacturers. That is one of the biggest scandals of this political generation, and extraordinarily little commented on. Nitrous oxides were spewed out, rather than the cleaner and less health-damaging emissions from petrol engines. That was a political decision taken by the last socialist Government, as I say, in cahoots with the European Union. I will take the hon. Gentleman’s statement as an apology for the last socialist Government on that.
As regards a debate on the increasing presidential power of the Prime Minister, that is something we can take back to the time of Gladstone, who was accused of riding roughshod over his Cabinet. Certainly, in the period of Lloyd George, it was thought that the centralisation of power was going too far. It is almost a reverse of the debates that took place in the 18th century about the power of the Crown, when this House debated that:
“The power of the Crown has increased, is increasing,”
and should be decreased. We now have much the same discussion going on, but the reality is that the British elector looks to a leader, and is very pleased with the leader they have.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Doncaster Sheffield airport has played a huge part in Doncaster’s history—I am sure my right hon. Friend will know it was once home to our nuclear deterrent, in the form of the Vulcan bomber—but, although it has a distinguished past, I am more interested in its future. The airport is currently working with both the University of Sheffield Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre and a company that produces the Airlander. Both will help hugely towards our net zero goal and employ and train many local people. With support through the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, they would truly start the levelling-up agenda. Will my right hon. Friend therefore speak with Government Ministers to help to secure that funding, so that Doncaster’s future is as exciting as its past?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for his constituency, as he shows once again. He is right to take pride in the history of a place, but to look forward to how that will become a future of prosperity and growth. I can tell him that BEIS has committed to co-funding a new zero carbon UK aircraft technology through the Aerospace Technology Institute programme to 2031, which will help to reach net zero aviation emissions by 2050. That is a commitment from both industry and the Government and builds on the commitment to provide joint funding of £3.9 billion for aerospace research and development between 2013 and 2026. The same programme has supported 343 aerospace technology projects, with total Government and industry funding of £3.2 billion across the UK, including the emerging green aerospace cluster in south Yorkshire. Officials will consider any business case presented for support, so I will ensure his comments and his request are passed on to the Secretary of State.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
We have a national crisis in the dentistry sector. Most people cannot find a dental practice that will accept new NHS patients, and it is compounded by the fact that dentists are leaving the sector in droves. The reality is that many people are facing hardship and simply cannot afford the cost of private dental treatment. The Government must therefore work with the British Dental Association to tackle the crisis. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time for a debate on the NHS dental sector?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am well aware of the concern, because it has been raised with me in my constituency and there was an Adjournment debate on Monday on access to NHS dentistry services in Bristol and the south-west. The Government have provided extra funding to dentists, who are doing a remarkable job of catching up with the backlog created because of the procedures and precautions required around covid.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Last weekend, a terrible fire ripped through the Leopard pub in the mother town of Burslem, which resulted in the local community collectively grieving. On behalf of residents across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, I thank Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service firefighters for their bravery in tackling the blaze. I am proud of Stoke’s unrivalled kindness: people have been bringing chocolates, mugs of tea and even drawings from local children such as Izzy to thank firefighters for their hard work in challenging conditions. The Leopard sits on Burslem’s high street and is a key part of not just Stoke-on-Trent’s history, but that of the United Kingdom: during the industrial revolution, Josiah Wedgwood and James Brindley met there to discuss building the Trent and Mersey canal.
Will my right hon. Friend add his thanks to Staffordshire Fire and Rescue? Will he commit to a debate in Government time on what more can be done to help, protect and regenerate heritage buildings, particularly on our high streets?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Once again, my hon. Friend stands up for Stoke with aplomb and vigour. I understand the sadness that there will be about the fire at the Leopard; I am tempted to say that the Leopard has compulsorily had to change its spots. I definitely add my thanks to Staffordshire Fire and Rescue. How charming that people like Izzy gave pictures that they had drawn to thank Staffordshire’s noble fire brigade for its work!
The Government provide heritage support through the taxpayer-funded £150 million community ownership fund, which allows communities to take control of vital local assets, and councils may use compulsory purchase orders for long-term empty properties. I hope that the Leopard was properly insured and that it will soon bounce back in all its glory.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Leader of the House was asked a specific question about an urgent debate on the Government’s national strategy for disabled people. The DWP lost a court case and its actions were found to be unlawful. Belittling the need to consult with disabled people is quite frankly disgraceful. The voices of disabled people are key to getting the strategy right.
We have never had a debate on the strategy. I think a debate would ensure that the strategy benefits from the experience of all Members, many of whom would consult disabled people and disabled people’s organisations.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I would simply say that the Government are making an application to appeal the case and that the disabled strategy is a fundamentally important strategy brought forward by the Government to ensure the best possible support for disabled people. That is exactly what the Government are doing. The Government lost on a technicality, as I said earlier; that does not undermine our fundamental drive to help disabled people.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Today’s papers are full of briefings blaming the staff at No. 10 for the Prime Minister’s predicament. Is passing the buck to staff not the most irresponsible of defences?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We are waiting for the report from Sue Gray. The Opposition still seem obsessed with these issues; I am still surprised that they are not using business questions to ask more about the really serious issues of the day, such as Ukraine and the build-up of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border. As far as I can tell, they are interested in cake rather than in Russia.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
At last week’s Health and Social Care oral questions, I raised the importance of improving diagnosis of, and care for, people living with pulmonary fibrosis and supporting research into a cure. I was pleased that the Secretary of State confirmed that he would bring the matter to the attention of his officials and see what more they could do, but can the Leader of the House advise how I can secure a debate in Government time on pulmonary fibrosis to raise awareness and press the Government to improve support and research?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady knows how the parliamentary system works extremely well. It seems to me that she is doing exactly the right thing in terms of raising this issue. She has raised it directly with the Secretary of State and she has now raised it with me. I have a feeling that she might be bobbing at Prime Minister’s questions in the not-too-distant future. There are also Adjournment debates, urgent questions and the Backbench Business Committee. I encourage her in that, because one of the real glories of our democracy is that, through using this Chamber, we can get policy changed. I know my role is to defend Government policy whatever it happens to be, but that vibrant democracy that gets things done, because MPs are standing up seeking redress of grievance for their constituents, is, I think, the life blood of how our constitution works.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Research from consumer champion Which? shows that an estimated 2.5 million households missed or defaulted on at least one mortgage, rent, loan or credit card bill this month, marking a significant increase from last year, with missed payments highest among those on lower incomes. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on what his Government will do to make sure that there is sufficient support for those in financial distress, and will he set out what urgent measures he will put in place to help prevent spiralling household debt?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady raises something of great and widespread importance, as she so often does. There are two things to say. One is about the general approach of the Government to try to improve people’s standard of living, and some of those that I have mentioned before, such as raising the national living wage and cutting the universal credit taper, so that people have more money in their pockets to better afford their bills. Having a record level of payroll employment is also a crucial part of it. So, there is the broad economic argument, but then there are the individuals who face a bill that they cannot pay. They probably need support immediately and urgently. There are a number of people who give that support in each of our constituencies. Sometimes it is simply about getting that support to reschedule payments to avoid massive interest payments that ratchet up and up. Therefore, it is the broad, top-down economic policymaking, which the Government are doing, and then there is the support that we, as individual MPs with the services available in our constituencies, can give to individuals when they have specific problems.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I was surprised to hear yesterday that the Chancellor had not consulted with the Prime Minister on writing off £4.3 billion of public money. It rather undermines what the Leader of the House has been saying today about the presidential style of Government. It also raises questions about whether we have effective Cabinet governance at the moment. This £4.3 billion is a huge sum of money, a fraction of which would transform the lives of my constituents. Does he not agree that that kind of money, if it is being written off, should be a matter for Cabinet discussion and for agreement by this House as well?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have already mentioned that we have stopped and recovered £743 million in overclaimed furlough grants and prevented £2.2 billion in fraud from our bounce back loan scheme, as well as the taxpayer protection taskforce being set to recover, in addition, £1 billion. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty’s Government, in all their parts, take fraud extraordinarily seriously and try to recoup money as fast as they possibly can. The package was slightly over £400 billion, and 1% of fraud is, of course, 1% too much. The Government obviously take it seriously, but when fraud has taken place, it is not always possible to recoup the money, because the fraudsters have spent it, and there may be no money to recover. One cannot get blood from a stone.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Will the Leader of the House update this House on the likely timetable of the Building Safety Bill? It is having its Second Reading in the House of Lords on 2 February, but the Secretary of State will be working with developers until March, and there is concern in this House that there may not be sufficient time to scrutinise any statutory protections that might be brought forward. Related to that, the Government indicated to me earlier this week that they are looking at bringing forward protections for innocent leaseholders from enforcement action before the Bill is concluded. Has the Leader of the House received any indication as to when the Government may make a statement on that particular issue?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It would be wrong of me to pre-empt Second Reading in the House of Lords. The Bill has obviously completed its passage in this House in time to pass through the Lords in the course of a normal Session. Obviously, any amendments made in the House of Lords will come back to this House for confirmation when we get to the Lords amendments stages, which is the routine way in which Bills pass. I reassure the hon. Lady that the House will have a chance to discuss those matters when they come back and that any amendments will be announced in the normal way.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Monday will be a very sad day with the funeral of our dear friend Jack. He was a great champion for the people of Erdington but also, if I may say, for the manufacturing sector and the car industry in particular. He had GKN—now Melrose—in his constituency, and of course Jaguar Land Rover. Today’s report from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders shows that last year there was a 34% reduction in production compared with 2019, which is significantly worse than in European competitor nations. I am sure that Jack would ask this question, were he here. Can we have a debate in Government time on the Government’s mismanagement of the pandemic and its impact on our economy?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, if I may, I think it is fair to say that there will be tributes to Jack Dromey on Wednesday, when I know that many Members from all sides of the House will want to pay a tribute to him.
On the economy, I think the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. The policy adopted during the pandemic has saved the UK economy—that is why it has already got back to its pre-pandemic level. The £400 billion of taxpayer support for individuals and industry meant that people did not lose their jobs and that businesses survived the pandemic. If we had not provided what was probably the greatest level of support of any country in the world, we would have reduced the supply available when the economy came back, and that would have been inflationary. It would also have had the effect of putting many tens or hundreds of thousands—possibly even millions—into unemployment; in fact, we have the lowest youth unemployment on record. I think the attack on economic management is simply misplaced and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government got the big decisions right. That has been so fundamentally important during the whole of the covid pandemic.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
In Swansea, 62% of waste is recycled compared with about 30% in north London. In Wales, we have a moratorium on incineration, but the Government’s plan in England is to double incineration by 2030. Indeed, the latest incinerator in north London will generate 700,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Can we have an urgent debate on incineration and fiscal measures to reduce it so that we can have cleaner air locally, protected from the ultra-fine particulates that incinerators emit, and contain our climate change discharges in a sensible way?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thought that the hon. Gentleman might make a pun about hot air and the ability of this House sometimes to produce it. Obviously, there are mixed ways of waste disposal, and producing energy from waste is not a bad thing to do. We need a mixed and diverse energy strategy. However, I am fascinated about the concern that the socialists always have for north London.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Ploughing matches and tractor runs are really important parts of rural life in the north-east of Scotland and far beyond, bringing the community together and allowing for the transfer of skills in the agricultural community. However, they are being put at risk by a rule change introduced by the Treasury from 1 April that will forbid the use of red diesel in vehicles for such purposes. Could we have a debate in Government time to discuss the deleterious impact of that rule change? Farmers, rather than flushing their tanks, may simply not take part, to the detriment of all. Can we have that debate to discuss how we might perhaps flush this unnecessary rule change instead of asking farmers to do the same with their tanks?
Mr Rees-Mogg
In Somerset, they have ploughing matches, which are, as the hon. Gentleman says, things that people enjoy. Actually, a late cousin of mine was exceptionally good at winning those ploughing competitions, so I have a great deal of sympathy with what he is saying. Of course, taxation is a matter for the Chancellor, but I will ensure that his point is passed on to the Treasury.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Assuming that levelling up is still the Government’s policy and that the Leader of the House thinks it is unacceptable for children to be taught in what the national media has called
“Britain’s worst built school where pupils paddle in sewage and get sick from toxic fumes,”
may I ask him to use his good offices to get the Department for Education to look again at the problems at Russell Scott primary school, caused by a botched £2.7 million refurbishment by Carillion, which has required a further three quarters of a million pounds just to patch up and needs a further £5 million to put right the structural deficits? I received yesterday an appalling response from Baroness Barran saying that she recognises the condition needs at Russell Scott but there are no capital funding routes available at this time to support the school. That is not on, is it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Hon. Members and right hon. Members will have heard me say before that I view it very much as my role as Leader of the House, when Members seek redress of grievance, to help them in that process. I do not know about this specific school and I would not wish to comment on it in detail. However, if the hon. Gentleman provides me with the details I will take the matter up with the Department and see whether I can get him a better answer, but I cannot promise to be able to do so.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Dickson chemist in Rutherglen, in my constituency, has become the first Scottish pharmacy to have a hyperbaric chamber available for customers. Hyperbaric chambers can have huge health benefits for tissue damage repair or chronic illness, such as multiple sclerosis. While recognising that health is a devolved matter, will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time on how provision of this equipment can be improved across the UK, both in terms of supply and cost?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am delighted that the hon. Lady is asking a Unionist question, because it is important that all parts of the Union learn from what is going on in other parts of the Union, so that we provide the best services to individuals. Having a hyperbaric chamber in a pharmacy sounds prima facie to be a very good idea and I hope it will be something that other people look into. I am grateful to her for raising it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to ask a question of the Leader of the House. Last week, Aneeqa Ateeq was found guilty of blasphemy and given a death sentence by a court in Lahore after sharing a message on social media. Aneeqa is one of 80 people imprisoned in Pakistan under blasphemy charges. Will the Leader of the House provide a statement on Her Majesty’s Government’s efforts to tackle blasphemy laws in Pakistan, given that that country is the largest beneficiary of UK aid?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising these important points about freedom of religion, ensuring that the Government are aware of them and that they are raised at the highest levels within Government.
Regrettably, I am not allowed to comment on individual cases. However, the Government remain concerned about the use of blasphemy laws in Pakistan. It is our long-standing policy to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, as a matter of principle. UK aid in Pakistan targets the most marginalised and vulnerable communities, and the Government fund programmes that work to address discrimination against minorities and gender-based violence, but of course Her Majesty’s Government should use all the influence at their hand to protect freedom of religion.
Point of Order
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, in Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister made some statements that are incorrect. He said that there are
“more people in our NHS now than in 2020”.—[Official Report, 26 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 997.]
However, there are 73,626 fewer full-time staff now than in January 2020. He said that Labour will abolish universal credit—we will not, and we voted to stop the cut in the £20 a week uplift. He said that
“we have the fastest-growing economy in the G7”.—[Official Report, 26 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 995.]
Looking at the last quarter, we are the fifth in the G7. And, he said that we would still be in lockdown if Labour were in power—we would not, and there are no policies to back up that assertion.
I am concerned about the amount of times this is happening in Prime Minister’s questions and I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, on how to set the record straight.
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Member has certainly put this agenda on the record and I thank her for giving notice of the point of order.
I appreciate that the hon. Member regards the answers from the Prime Minister as unsatisfactory. Unfortunately, the content of the answers to parliamentary questions is not a matter for the Chair. I remind the House that the Government’s own ministerial code requires Ministers to correct inadvertent errors in answers to parliamentary questions at the earliest opportunity. If errors have been made in this instance, I am sure the Prime Minister will seek to correct them as quickly as possible. The hon. Member will also be aware that she may wish to write to the Procedure Committee in order to take this up with it.
Draft Online Safety Bill
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
We now come to the Select Committee statement. Julian Knight will speak 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 Julian Knight to respond to those questions in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. Front Benchers may take part, but I remind everybody that we have a very important debate to follow and I hope that people will try to ensure that we get on to that debate as early as possible. I now call the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee—Julian Knight.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. With your words of endorsement ringing in my ears, I will ensure that I am as brief as the subject can allow.
I am grateful to have been granted this statement to discuss the DCMS Committee’s report on the draft online safety Bill. This is an important piece of legislation that, if done right, will prevent a tremendous amount of harm to so many in our society. The ultimate aim for all of us involved in the production of the Bill is to make user-to-user and search service providers more accountable for decisions they make when designing their platforms and the systems and processes that govern them. The Committee I chair has a crucial role in ensuring that that is the ultimate outcome of this work. While I welcome large parts of the Bill’s content in draft form, there are some elements that do need work so that we do not miss the opportunity to make the internet a safer space for all, while protecting freedom of expression.
One such area of particular concern to the Committee is that the Bill in its current form lacks clarity on what falls within the parameters of illegal content and in its treatment of legal but nevertheless terribly harmful content. For example, the Committee was alarmed to hear in evidence so many examples of online abuse towards women and girls that would not be adequately covered by the Bill in its current form. We are all aware of frankly appalling images being shared online without the consent of those pictured, some of whom are underage. Many of these would be covered by the Bill, but not all.
Furthermore, the internet is awash with images that are often edited to cause harm and are clearly not within the scope of the Bill. My Committee’s report seeks to tackle this. We also have concerns about the less immediately obvious examples of abuse such as breadcrumbing—leading someone on virtually with a series of digital breadcrumbs on the way to illegal and harmful material. In such instances, the context of these communications is key. Some examples of online abuse that we have heard in our investigations are insidious—inch by inch, step by step, allowing people, often children and teenagers, to be lured in. In such instances, no one message, picture or like is technically illegal, but they none the less form part of a sequence of online child sexual exploitation and abuse. The Bill can and must stop this. For this reason, we propose reframing the definition of “illegal content” to include context.
The Committee was truly shocked by the repeated examples of cyber-flashing and deliberate manipulation of images such as tech-enabled nudifying of women and deepfake pornography, which currently go unchecked. The deliberate manipulation of images to circumnavigate content moderators is egregious in its own right. It is also a key hallmark of potential child exploitation. This Bill, if crafted correctly, can and must protect children from such acts and such tactics. In its current form, it does not adequately cover these examples of truly harmful content. As such, we propose that they should be included in the Bill and covered by the duties of care in it.
Another area that many Members are rightly deeply concerned by is the many examples of inherently harmful activity that are not illegal. We support the Joint Committee in its view about harmful actions such as cyber-flashing, and people with photosensitive epilepsy being targeted by trolls sending malicious flashing images with a deliberate intent to trigger a seizure: these offences, in all the senses that we would understand, must be included in the Bill.
Finally, I come to the issue of scrutiny. The current provisions in the Bill to provide Ofcom with a suite of powers to address such actions are unclear and impractical. We urge the Government to bake in best practice by providing greater clarity in the Bill on when and how these powers should be used to ensure that they are both practical and proportionate. We recommend that there should be compliance officers in the social media companies, paid for by those companies, baking in that best practice. That will, hopefully, also lead to the ending, or at least reduction, of unwarranted take-downs.
The present situation is deeply unsatisfactory. Effectively, social media companies are editors-in-chief of the content on their sites. There is no say, and no transparency. They act according to their terms and conditions, which they decide. That can lead—and has led in the past—to unwarranted take-downs, and the people who suffer those take-downs then have to appeal to the social media companies. This is not right. It is against freedom of speech. We need proper systems so that transparency and know-how on the ground can ensure that any such issues of take-down are set against clear parameters. That can, I believe, be regulated in the same way as financial services are effectively regulated—through a strong compliance regime.
We specifically recommend that the Government reframe the language relating to freedom-of-expression considerations to incorporate a “must balance” test, to enable Ofcom, and the compliance officers whose introduction we propose, to assess whether providers have duly balanced their freedom-of-expression obligations with their decision making, thereby preventing unjustified take-downs of material.
Our Committee has made clear that it strongly disagrees with the recommendation of the now defunct Joint Committee—which did amazing work in this area—that a permanent Joint Committee be established as
“a solution to the lack of transparency and…oversight”.
We disagree with that proposal for a range of reasons, but not least because it would set a precedent which could be written into any other Bill and could then effectively circumnavigate the Select Committee system. I think the Select Committee system is the jewel in the crown of this House, and I say that not just because I have a personal interest in it. This, I think, is something we can do ourselves. If there is a need for pre-legislative scrutiny, Select Committees should be able to deal with it, but in any event the Government are free to set up a framework of pre-legislative scrutiny which may be on a one-off or ad hoc basis. That has happened before after a period of time in the case of other Acts that have passed through this place.
I welcome wholeheartedly the aims of this Bill and much of its content. I hope and expect the Department to be in listening mode—I know that the Minister personally is absolutely committed to that—so that we can all work together to ensure that the aim and the reality of the Bill are aligned, and we can make the internet a safer and a better place that is more in tune with what I would describe as the health of our society.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) and the other members of the Committee for their hard work in delivering this important report. Having previously been a member of the Committee, I am all too well aware of the challenges to online safety, particularly in the context of defining or contextualising what constitutes a “harm”. The Labour party has long called for tougher penalties for tech companies which fail to comply with their responsibilities to users; a change in culture is clearly urgently required for those companies, which have been left unaccountable for far too long.
The report has also highlighted a number of issues, or omissions, in the Government’s current draft bill, and I am keen to hear the hon. Gentleman’s thoughts on those. First, the report recommends that providers should have designated compliance officers to ensure good governance. This is not the first time that that recommendation has been made, but the proposal has been discounted until now. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have been too slow in pushing social media companies to act?
Secondly, the Secretary of State, in her evidence to the Joint Committee assessing the draft online safety bill, referred to legal advice that she had received, including advice on a foundational duty of care. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital for the Government to publish that legal advice ahead of the response to the DCMS Committee’s report, so that their reply can be understood in the context of the advice that they have received? I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree—especially given events that have unfolded in relation to other matters this week—that it is simply not acceptable for the Government to conceal important advice from the public domain.
Julian Knight
I thank the hon. Member for her kind question, but also for her acknowledgment of the ongoing work of the Select Committee, on which she played a fantastic role during her time with us.
The hon. Member references compliance officers, and the key, of course, is to make the regime pre-emptive rather than reactive. I think that actually helps freedom of expression, basically because if we in effect have this baked into the system, there is less chance of take-downs as a result.
When it comes to social media companies and the Government’s interaction with them, there is an idea that the Government have in effect run scared of social media and the huge lobby. These are the new masters of the universe—the new oil companies, the new banking institutions—and they have huge and enormous powers. I think it is therefore beholden on the Government to draw from every part of this House in order to come up with a framework that can best bring them in to be good citizens in our society. I am hopeful of the time when Nick Clegg is not perhaps as welcome in putting his views, but is in that regard perhaps the same as Members in this place. I do concur to some degree with the hon. Member, but every Government in the world is also facing this huge issue.
On publishing legal advice, I do believe wholeheartedly in complete transparency. I think that part of the process of being cross-party and getting this Bill right actually should be absolute transparency when it comes to such matters.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and his entire Committee on this report into what he correctly describes in the report as a very “complex” Bill. Given its complexity, does he agree with me that it is very important that the Government response both to his Committee’s report and, indeed, to the report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill is not just substantive, but timely and reaches all of us well in advance of Second Reading of the Bill, so that we can all consider properly the Government’s responses?
Julian Knight
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend, and I do concur in that respect. We have waited a very long time for this Bill, and we have to get it right. I think we have waited too long for the Bill, but that is the past—that is done. What we cannot do now is rush things to such an extent that we cannot take everyone’s views on board, and therefore I would concur. Basically, this has to be a structure that survives, potentially for decades to come, and is built on as we see challenges going forward, so I concur with my right hon. and learned Friend.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement. I am very glad to hear him acknowledge the importance of protecting freedom of expression, but there is also the issue of anti-discrimination law. On a number of occasions in this Chamber, I have raised the problem that Twitter’s hateful conduct policy and its moderation policy often discriminate against women by taking down women’s tweets when they state biological facts and failing to take down abusive and violent tweets directed at women. The reason for that being that Twitter does not have sex as a protected characteristic in its hateful conduct policy. This was raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in a report a couple of years ago, in which we recommended that Twitter should include sex as a protected characteristic in its hateful conduct policy.
From my inquiries, it seems that Twitter thinks it is above the domestic law of the United Kingdom when it comes to anti-discrimination law, and it seems to be praying in aid a loophole in the Equality Act 2010. I am not sure it is right about that legally, but does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that, if there is a loophole in the Equality Act that is letting Twitter off the hook when it comes to our anti-discrimination law, the Online Safety Bill would be a good opportunity to close that loophole, so that Twitter and other service providers are all subject to the anti-discrimination law of the United Kingdom?
Julian Knight
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her comments, and I have a great deal of sympathy for what she says. I am well aware that she receives unwarranted and vile abuse at times for expressing her views, and I think that is abhorrent in many respects. It highlights in many regards the point I made earlier about the social media companies being their own editors-in-chief and effectively having their own content policies. That will be the case going forward, but there needs to be oversight of those so that they are compliant with the new law as it stands. One of our recommendations is:
“We have proposed several amendments to the definition and scope of harms covered by the regime that would bring the Bill into line with the UK’s obligations to freedom of expression under international human rights law.”
I hope that that recommendation would cover many of the aspects to which the hon. and learned Lady is referring.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
A few years ago, on social media, there was a picture of my young son being beheaded in an ISIS-type scenario. It was not really my son in the picture, but the image represented my son. The excellent Chairman of the Select Committee is right to say how powerful Select Committees are. Would anything that the Government are doing in the Bill have prevented that picture from being put online, or have helped us find out who did that?
Julian Knight
I have heard of this before from my hon. Friend. I am grateful for the opportunity to express my deepest sympathy, shock and anger at the vile, disgusting behaviour that he and his family faced. The short answer to his question is: yes, if the Bill is got right. That picture is a type of deepfake. The harassment aspect is illegal; a case would have to be built around the harassment aspect, so he would almost have to take this offline, rather than deal with it as an online matter. The way to deal with it online would be by baking in resources such as compliance officers, and by writing it into the Bill that posting and manipulating an image that is meant to do harm should be considered an online harm, and therefore something for which social media companies could be called to account. If the Bill is crafted correctly, the egregious and disgusting use of vile images of that kind would, I hope, be curtailed.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee. I confirm that all Members across the Committee are in firm agreement with the recommendations in the report. Does he believe that the Government should take particular note of recommendation 19 on designated compliance officers, and recommendation 28, which says that the Government should scrap plans to introduce a permanent joint committee to oversee online safety and digital regulation? The latter idea seems to have come out of nowhere; perhaps it was written on the back of a fag packet or came from a weekend tweet—I do not know. Should the Government not abandon that daft idea, and recognise that it is the proper duty of the Select Committee to undertake that scrutiny?
Julian Knight
For me, one of the attractions of compliance officers is that the idea is based on the regime we have for financial services, which has been one of the most successfully regulated industries, certainly over the past 15 years since the financial crash. The role of the compliance officer has been key to that. One good thing about the proposal is that it is the social media companies that would pay. Whenever social media companies see any form of potential illegality, they push it to arm’s length; they push it to the police, and expect the police to pick up the pieces. The police do not have the resources to chase these things down, so only exemplars get pulled up by the police. The companies should be responsible, and should pay for their own policing.
Of course I agree with the point about recommendation 28. I would like to think that the debate on that has shifted over time. The Secretary of State was obviously expressing a genuine view. I completely understand that view, and why it was expressed at that juncture. However, the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill has perhaps run away with the suggestion a little bit, and in so doing, has perhaps encroached on the good governance of this place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answers. Recent reports have stated that the draft Online Safety Bill is neither clear enough nor robust enough to tackle some forms of illegal and harmful content. Responsibility for some of the most serious forms of child sexual exploitation may be evaded. Will the Chair of the Committee provide reassurances that tackling all forms of illegal, harmful and exploitative content will be prioritised in the Bill, so that we can protect young children, and many others who are vulnerable?
Julian Knight
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to highlight that point. There is an issue about content that is deliberately manipulated in order to avoid moderation. Effectively, it is content that just manages to evade the algorithms, but is there as a signpost to abuse, or is a means of taking people off one platform and on to another that is not a tier-1 platform and that may be less regulated. It is crucial that that is clamped down on as soon as possible, so that we can protect children in the way that he and I—and, I am sure, all Members of the House—wish to do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)
Let me start by putting on record my thanks and the Government’s thanks for the work that the Select Committee has done. We are grateful for the time and attention that its members have given to this important issue.
There is no question but that large social media firms have not been prioritising safety and preventing harm, even in relation to children. They have been prioritising profit instead of people, and the time has come for Parliament to act. The legislation we have tabled is groundbreaking; we will be one of the first countries, if not the first country, in the world to take such a step. The measures in the Bill, even as drafted, are very strong, with fines of up to 10% of global revenue capable of being levied, and personal liability for some senior executives in certain circumstances.
I thank the Select Committee Chairman for his comments about freedom of expression, which are of course important. There are duties in the Bill as drafted requiring social media firms to have regard to freedom of expression and, particularly, to protect journalistic and democratic content. We are interested in exploring with the Select Committee how we can go further in those areas, and I look forward to appearing before it in a week or two.
Let me finish by saying that we are very much in listening mode; we have been digesting the reports of the Select Committee and the Joint Committee very carefully. It is our intention to bring forward an updated Bill in this Session so that it can have its Second Reading. In preparing that updated Bill, we will continue to work closely with the Committees and to listen carefully to the views of Members of this House, including those expressed in the session today and in the debate we had a week or two ago. There is a great deal of wisdom on both sides of the House that we can learn from, and it is our intention to do that as we bring forward this groundbreaking piece of legislation designed to protect our fellow citizens but particularly children.
Julian Knight
I thank the Minister for his comments. He is very engaged in the process and shows due respect to the Joint Committee and the Select Committee both in terms of our work and through his engagement. That is very welcome and is a reminder of times past.
I welcome the Government’s listening mode. The message from both sides of the House must be that we can all contribute as much as possible and that this should not be about party lines. This legislation is too important to get bogged down in issues such as that, because it is about the protection of our society, our democracy, our children and our mental health.
Backbench Business
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Holocaust Memorial Day
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day 2022.
I would like to thank the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for co-sponsoring today’s debate. I am only sorry that the right hon. Member for Barking could not be with us because she is recovering from covid. As Margaret is not here, and therefore cannot be embarrassed, I thought I would say a few words about her. She has championed holocaust remembrance throughout her 28 years in the House and has proven to be one of our most courageous warriors against antisemitism and racism of all kinds. I will miss her enormously when she steps down at the next general election, but I feel fortunate to have served alongside her and to be able to do so for some time yet. I am sure we all wish her a speedy recovery.
Holocaust Memorial Day has been a national day of commemoration for over 20 years and our debates have become a regular fixture in the parliamentary calendar. We use this day to fulfil a solemn obligation, an obligation of remembrance: to never allow the memory of those who died in the holocaust to be forgotten by anyone anywhere in the world. This year’s theme, “One Day”, encourages us to put aside our differences for just one day, to come together to understand more about our past, and to resolve to act for a better future. I hope that Members from across the House will join me at 8 pm this evening and light candles in our windows as a mark of remembrance.
Today, the 77th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, we remember a dark stain on human history, the greatest evil perpetrated by man against man in the long catalogue of human crimes. Today, we mourn with those who mourn, and grieve with those who grieve. We remember the names, the faces and the promise of the 6 million Jews who were murdered. Today, we pay tribute to those who survived and, for all these years, have borne witness to that evil and have served humankind in doing so. Today, we honour and remember the memory of the allied forces, including the 3.3 million British servicemen who left hearth and home, suffered appalling casualties and freed a continent from the grip of tyranny. We pay tribute to the memory of those non-Jewish heroes and heroines who saved countless lives—those people who the people of Israel call the righteous among the nations. In an age of indifference, they acted. In an age of fear, they showed courage and their memory is an example to us all.
As time passes, the importance of this day grows. In 2020, 147 survivors of the holocaust passed away in this country. In 2021, 134 died. The youngest survivor of the camps is currently 77. As the survivors die, the holocaust is moving from living memory to vital history, which is why we must keep their experiences alive. It is why I pay tribute to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, run by the brilliant Olivia Marks-Woldman; the Holocaust Education Trust, led by the indefatigable Karen Pollock; the Wiener Holocaust Library; the Beth Shalom Holocaust Centre, which is in my own constituency in Nottinghamshire; and many other organisations and charities for the work they do to document, record and educate.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating and thanking the Prince of Wales for his initiative in having the portraits of seven holocaust survivors painted? This is one way of ensuring a lasting legacy, and of Holocaust Memorial Day remaining in the public’s consciousness.
Robert Jenrick
I will, and I thought the images of those survivors and their families with the Prince of Wales—just yesterday, I believe—seeing the unveiling of their portraits at the Royal Gallery was extremely moving.
Those are some of the reasons why, as Secretary of State, I worked to gain approval for the National Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, so that, when the time when the last living survivors leave us does come, there will be another permanent centre to reflect, honour and remember those who suffered and died, and to educate future generations. I am grateful to Members on all sides of this House who continue to support that initiative.
Our debate in Parliament also matters. I have come year after year to share my own or my constituents’ experiences of the holocaust. I have talked about my own family, many of whom perished in death camps in what today is Ukraine, but two of whom miraculously survived—my children are their great-grandchildren. Had the right hon. Member for Barking been present, she would have shared with us the experience of her brother-in-law, who is gravely ill.
Herbert was born in Germany in 1930 into a successful middle-class Jewish family. One of his earliest memories is Kristallnacht in November 1938, when his grandfather was assaulted and had all his teeth knocked out. His father had already lost his job as a judge because he was a Jew. Herbert and his little sister were among the very few children who escaped on the Kindertransport. He still has the passport with the Nazi swastika imprinted on it. He remembers little of the journey he took to Liverpool Street—he was only eight. From London he went to Wales, where the children were joined by their mother, who managed to escape. His father did get to Switzerland, but the family were never reunited. Although a refugee, Herbert served in the RAF and has enjoyed a full and fulfilling life in Britain.
The right hon. Lady and I both know how powerful it is to have heard these stories from our own family members, to feel their impact and to have had a personal relationship with those who were victims of the holocaust. It is—I think I speak for all of us in this House who have met them—one of the greatest privileges to meet survivors. It was a huge privilege for me to meet Sir Ben Helfgott, Lily Ebert and Susan Pollack in July, when together we marked the granting of planning permission for the memorial in Victoria Gardens. All were very emotional that day. One said to me, as we walked away, that she could die easier knowing that they had contributed to that project and to educating future generations.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very important and powerful speech. I had the privilege of meeting Gena Turgel, the bride of Belsen, when she spoke to schoolchildren in my constituency. Does he welcome the work of the trust, which is propagating those memories to the next generation and how important it is that that continuous word-of-mouth is passed on?
Robert Jenrick
I certainly do and the hon. Gentleman makes the point very powerfully. The way we remember is changing. For example, Dov, the great-grandson of Lily, whom I met in Victoria Gardens, is now using his 1.3 million TikTok followers to educate the next generation with her stories. I strongly encourage those who have not seen them to do so. The importance of remembrance remains as strong as ever.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentioned Susan Pollack. Some years ago, I stood with other Conservative Members at the memorial in Kigali, which is probably the largest grave in the world, with more than 250,000 people murdered in the Rwandan genocide. Does he acknowledge that one of the most important points of a debate such as this is to look at where we have failed since the holocaust, and where sometimes the very noble sentiments we express in this House have fallen short?
Robert Jenrick
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend has a long record, of which he should be proud, of drawing the attention of the House to exactly those issues. That is exactly the point I was turning to.
Since the holocaust, human civilisation has advanced by virtually every metric. We live today in the most advanced human civilisation in history, yet we are still capable of such evil. To acknowledge that fallibility and where it can lead is the best corrective to these indescribable tragedies. The genocide committed on the Jews, the Roma, the Gypsies and the disabled in Europe in the 1940s was, as my right hon. Friend says, not an aberration in history. There have been subsequent genocides in our living memory: the millions of victims of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia; the million-plus victims of the Rwandan genocide; and the 8,000 Muslim men and boys who were murdered in Srebrenica.
Today, atrocities continue in Darfur, and last month the Uyghur Tribunal’s judgment in London found beyond reasonable doubt that the People’s Republic of China is responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and torture in Xinjiang region. Its findings were supported by this House in the debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). In each of those cases, we see what happens when the powerless cry for help and the powerful fail to answer.
On Holocaust Memorial Day, it is appropriate that we reflect on the atrocities of the past to draw connections with those of the present. While Britain is, as I can attest from my own family, one of the most welcoming places for Jews anywhere in the world, antisemitism is on the rise at home. This year, the Community Security Trust found that anti-Jewish hate incidents rose by 49%.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
On the issue of rising antisemitism, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very good that there are opportunities for schoolchildren to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau, to see personally the horrors that were inflicted on those poor people, and that that is something that should be encouraged, to ensure that more people understand the reality of what happened? May I also just compliment him on managing to secure this debate and on his very powerful speech?
Robert Jenrick
I thank my hon. Friend, and return to my thanks to and support of the Holocaust Educational Trust, which sends hundreds of thousands of our young people to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau. I hope this Government will continue to support the trust, as previous Governments did, enabling those visits to continue.
Social media is fuelled with antisemitic hatred, with conspiracy theorists growing their followers daily. According to research published last year by the Antisemitism Policy Trust, there were up to half a million explicitly antisemitic tweets per year made viewable to UK users. During the pandemic, we have seen the use and abuse of holocaust language and imagery, with anti-lockdown protesters carrying signs reading “Vaccine Holocaust” and wearing the Star of David. In May last year, we saw a convoy of vehicles drive through north London with speakers blasting out antisemitic slurs and threats against Jews. In December, the passengers on a bus in Oxford Street, who had been celebrating Hanukkah, were subjected to vile and frightening abuse, with racists banging shoes against the bus.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I think it was in the dying days of the Obama Administration that Obama told students at a university that
“ignorance is not a virtue.”
Do we not need to put that across again and again? Ignorance is not a virtue. It is education and knowledge that lead us to understand and not to commit such atrocities against others.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady makes her point eloquently, and of course I agree entirely.
Some of us here have been on the receiving end of antisemitism—I know the right hon. Member for Barking has on many occasions. I recently received a letter telling me to teach my “Jewish Zionist wife” to “put out fires”, as they intended to burn our house down and cremate our children.
As Communities Secretary, I encouraged universities to adopt and use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, a cause taken up strongly by the current Education Secretary, but despite those entreaties some universities have not done so. Only last year the University of Bristol, one of our most respected universities, acted painfully slowly to discipline Professor David Miller, a purveyor of antisemitic conspiracy theories that went well beyond the bounds of free speech. Such incidents are one of the reasons I champion the brilliant Union of Jewish Students.
I will end my speech today as the right hon. Member for Barking would have done, by quoting a diary extract of her grandfather’s. Old, ill and interned, deemed an enemy alien at the time, in an entry before Christmas, he wrote,
“Is the present time a blip? Is Hitler only an episode? Are these ideas going to disappear and the better side of humanity re-emerge?”
We owe it to her grandfather Wilhelm, and all the survivors of genocides, to do all we can to learn from their experiences.
Today, we remember not simply the liberation of the camps, but the triumph of freedom and the human spirit. We marvel at the strength, the resilience and the faith of those survivors and of Jewish people here in the UK and around the world. We must continue to tell their stories. We must use this day to continue the fight against hatred in all its forms. Then, perhaps, one day we will have a future without genocide.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may or may not be known to the House—it is known to the Government—that permission has been given to appeal the planning approval for the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. I think we need to be careful about how we speak about it. I did not want to interrupt the exceptionally good speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on a very important subject.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which of course is not a point for the Chair, but which might well be important as a point of information for hon. Members participating in the debate. I suppose that, to some extent, planning appeals are sub judice and we must be careful about what we say here in the Chamber.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Although a great many colleagues wish to participate in today’s important debate, I hope that we can manage without a time limit. If everybody, having regard for others’ rights as well as their own, takes eight to nine minutes or less, everyone will be able to get in without a time limit. I do hope that this is one debate in which the Chair can rely on colleagues to think of others, not only of themselves.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for his powerful and moving opening speech. May I say how sorry we were to hear of his family’s recent experiences? He has solidarity on the Opposition Benches against those racists.
Every day on my Twitter feed, I see the Auschwitz memorial’s images of people murdered. Those that grab me particularly are the faces of the babes in arms, toddlers, children and teens who were murdered in the gas chambers. Every single day, I wonder how those faces could be treated as the enemy, having their very humanity denied. Every single day, I wonder how it is possible that human beings could do this to such innocents. Every single day, I have genuinely no idea how it happened.
Today, I want to tell the story of Rena Quint, who survived the holocaust at just nine years of age. Rena lived with her mother, father and two brothers. She remembers that across the street was a kiosk that sold ice cream; she remembers her brothers pulling her through the snow on a sledge. She was just three years old when Germany invaded Poland. Her home was in the new ghetto: it took in many sick and hungry strangers, and people died before her eyes.
Then, one day, there was a round-up. All the women and children were brutally forced into the synagogue. Rena, her mum and her brothers were among them. She describes it as a scene out of hell, but she remembers a man at an outside door who beckoned to her, called her by name and told her to run. She still does not quite understand why she let go of her mum’s and her brothers’ hands, but she ran. Rena says that maybe the hand of God pushed her, because all those women and children were transported to Treblinka, and they were murdered.
Rena was given a new name. She was dressed as a boy and joined her father’s forced labour group. She has no idea how she was able to pretend for so long, but pretending kept her alive. She had to work at a glass factory at just five or six years of age, carrying heavy loads in extreme heat all day long.
In 1944, when it was decided that their slave labour was no longer needed in the factory, Rena and her father were packed into freezing cattle cars to Bergen-Belsen. They had no food, no water and no toilets, and they were locked in for three days with the dead and the dying. When they arrived, her father knew that they would be forced to strip for inspection, so they were forced to separate. Rena never saw her father again. She endured the utter horror of the camp for many months, with nothing to eat but sawdust bread and sometimes thin, greasy soup, with cold and disease all around. Rena never cried in response to any of the thousands of deaths that she would have witnessed. Murder was her every day.
And then, one day, when Rena was sick with typhus, she remembers lying under a tree. She felt that it was impossible to get up and she just wanted to fall asleep forever, but then there was a commotion. British soldiers had arrived and they were liberating the camp. Rena remembers getting some milk and bread and going into a hospital tent and being cared for.
Rena has lived a long and flourishing life to this day, but she was so young when her birth family were murdered that she no longer remembers their faces. Rena’s account reminds us of the systemic inhumanity that so many millions of Jews were subjected to during the holocaust, and it speaks of how the innocence of children was so completely disregarded and destroyed by the Nazis.
Rena had to behave as an adult from as young as five years of age while having to deal with things that no adult, still less any child, should experience. We must never forget her story. Her story reminds me of the children growing up today in the Rohingya refugee camps. It makes me think of the children in Bosnia now facing the same rising threat as their parents and grandparents. What are we going to do to stop these young lives being brutalised, too?
This year’s theme is “One Day”. My hope is that, one day, children will no longer be dehumanised or treated as enemies, targets or soldiers. But even when that day comes, as I pray it does, we must remember Rena’s life and her family’s lives and all the other millions murdered.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) after her excellent speech and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), whom I congratulate on securing this debate. I join everybody in the Chamber in thanking the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the Holocaust Educational Trust and everybody else who works in this area. I particularly pay tribute to the Antisemitism Policy Trust and its chief executive, Danny Stone, who does so much in supporting and providing the secretariat for the all-party group against antisemitism, which I and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) co-chair.
I will attend the Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony in Brigg in north Lincolnshire this Sunday, which will take place at our new memorial there. It is a town I have spoken about before that has little to zero Jewish population but which, through its town council and particularly Councillor Rob Waltham, decided that it wanted to do its bit and to do more to ensure that the memory of the holocaust is never forgotten. That is why, just a few years ago, following a competition in which local schools took part, a local pupil designed a fantastic new memorial in Brigg, and the town will come together on Sunday to ensure that we never forget.
I thank Demeter House School in Brigg, a special educational needs school that has been working with the University College London Centre for Holocaust Education to build its confidence in teaching its children about the holocaust. It is one of 165 schools across England taking part in that initiative, and I pay tribute to it for that.
Why is this debate so important? Sadly, the scourge of antisemitism continues to plague our society and others around the world. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark said, we have seen that in the past year with the case of Professor Miller at the University of Bristol, which failed to protect its students swiftly. This was a racist, antisemitic professor targeting Jewish students, accusing them of effectively being in the pay of the state of Israel—a classic antisemitic trope. In calling that out, as we did not so long so ago in an Adjournment debate, members of the all-party parliamentary group were singled out and attacked as being Zionist agents, agents of the state of Israel or in the pay of Israel.
Why is this debate necessary? As other Members have said, people visiting any social media platform over the past couple of years will have found antisemitic posts linking covid and the development of vaccines to Israel, to Jews, to the classic international conspiracy. We have seen, as has been referenced, the sickening sight of people on anti-lockdown protests wearing yellow stars.
Andrew Percy
Of course I give way to the vice-chair of the APPG.
Christian Wakeford
Just last week we saw swastikas on the streets of Bury in protest against covid passes. It is depressing that we even need to say this in this House, but there is no place for antisemitism, these tropes or this hatred on our streets, campuses and society, and it needs a debate such as this to call it out and say, “No more.” [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Andrew Percy
Absolutely—I could not agree more. Too many people throughout this coronavirus period have casually linked the necessary measures to Nazi Germany. My constituents are largely very sensible people—they have sent me here four times, which proves how sensible they are; and they have done so, I might add, in ever increasing numbers and with a higher percentage of the vote, but I digress—but I am afraid to say that even a small number of my constituents have sent me some of this material. One of them even sent me a photograph of the Nazi health pass, likening it to the vaccine mandate, even though the Nazis and Hitler himself were against vaccine mandates.
That is absolutely why this debate is necessary. We have this debate every year, and each time we can all trot out a whole range of different experiences and examples from the preceding year, as Members have done today—I will not repeat them—which prove the sad necessity for this debate and for the ongoing work we have to do on antisemitism.
Andrew Percy
I will, but I am conscience of your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Bob Blackman
I will be very brief. My hon. Friend is taking an impassioned view of antisemitism. Is he aware that just yesterday Jewish shopkeepers in Stamford Hill were attacked? There is a video of the incident and a police investigation is taking place, but it is clear that antisemitism is rife in our society today.
Andrew Percy
I was not aware of that particular incident, but I am sorry to say that this is happening time and again. Anyone who visits social media or other online platforms, including sales sites such as Amazon, will be able to find books that minimise and question the holocaust. The APPG has raised this many times, in repeated meetings, with the social media platforms and through direct approaches to Amazon and others, but anyone who looks today will be able to find holocaust denial and revisionist material for sale on Amazon.
In the few minutes I have left, I want to talk, in a more positive sense, about some of those heroes who did so much to help save people in the holocaust. This year I came across a book called “The Bravest Voices”, written by Ida Cook. She was one of two sisters, Ida and Louise Cook, who have been described as plain and dowdy English spinsters in the 1930s. They were huge fans of opera, and they took it upon themselves to rescue Jews and non-Jews from Nazi Germany. They did that by flying out on a Friday evening from Croydon airport, and returning overnight on Sunday via train and boat from the Netherlands, so as to be back at work at their desk jobs in the civil service in London on Monday morning. As I said, they fell into that through their love of opera, and they met people who were trying to get out of Germany. They would go through the border on the way into Germany dressed very plainly, and they would come out dressed in the furs—they often sewed new labels into those—jewels and valuables of the people they were rescuing, which would then be sold in the UK to raise the funds required at the time for the sponsorship of Jews who wanted to get out.
They did that in a very matter of fact way, and the book written by Ida Cook is wonderful in its modesty. They do not talk about “rescuing”; they talk simply about “getting people out”, “pulling people out”, or “dragging people out”—it is well worth a read. They used their English spinster act. Neither of them ever married. The pen name of Ida Cook was Mary Burchell, who was a famous Mills and Boon author. They enlisted church groups, and others, to facilitate their work, and they assisted countless numbers of people, rescuing them from Nazi Germany. We learn some of the names, and others we know simply by their first name, including a lady referred to simply as “Alice”, who refused to sell a hat to von Ribbentrop’s wife, and who they managed to rescue successfully.
The case that most struck me was that of a young Polish Jewish boy who they rescued at the very last minute in 1939. He was expelled from Germany in October 1938 for being a Polish Jew, and was one of those caught up at the Polish border because of the refusal to allow people into Poland at that time—that is not a criticism of Poland, as borders were closing to Jews all across the world at that time. The boy spent the winter in the Zbaszyn improvised prison camp on the Polish border. By some means, which the Cook sisters did not know when they wrote their biography in the 1950s and never learned, he contacted them, and they received a letter asking if they could raise a guarantee to get him out. The tribulations over the next few months as they tried to rescue him are an interesting and emotional read. They had trouble getting money to him and getting the necessary permits. He had a permit number that would have put him 500 above the permits that were allowed in at that time, but a friendly civil servant here in London did the necessary work. At last, two weeks before the outbreak of war, the Cook sisters were out in Germany meeting the next group of people who they wanted to rescue, when they got word that, by assisting one of the last children’s transports out of Poland, this young boy was able to get to a boat. As they described, he was literally:
“The last man to board the last boat that left Gydnia”.
just a couple of days before the outbreak of war.
That is a very moving story, as is my last point, which is that the Cook sisters downplayed their own role in all this, and constantly throughout the biography play up the role of others. That includes the consul general at Frankfurt during Kristallnacht, who opened up the British consulate to Jews, day and night, and provided food, since Jews had been banned from purchasing food in the days running up to Kristallnacht. He even went out on the streets giving food to Jews. Ida Cook describes that at the end:
“It was a piece of Britain”.
I think that is something we should all reflect on today when we think about other refugee crises, including that we have seen in Afghanistan. It was a piece of Britain, Madam Deputy Speaker, and today when we face other crises we should ask ourselves this: what is the piece of Britain that we want to project around the world?
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I rise to speak today to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day, which, on the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, commemorates the 6 million Jews murdered during the holocaust, alongside the millions killed under Nazi persecution of other groups, including Roma and Sinti people, Slavic people, LGBT and disabled people and political and religious minorities. On this day, we also remember the subsequent genocides in Rwanda, Cambodia, Dafur and Bosnia.
As the holocaust fades from living memory, I want to put on record my gratitude to all of the survivors whose testimonies are at the heart of holocaust education, but which come at huge personal cost. It is impossible to comprehend the abjectness of the horrors that they experienced, the trauma that follows them through their lives, or the sacrifice that bearing witness entails. Marceline Loridan-Ivens said:
“If you only knew, all of you, how the camp remains permanently within us. It remains in all our minds, and will until we die”
Similarly, Shlomo Venezia, said:
“Everything takes me back to the camp. Whatever I do, whatever I see, my mind keeps harking back to the same place. It’s as if the “work” I was forced to do there had never really left my head…Nobody ever really gets out of the Crematorium”.
Those who survived the camps were greeted with
“incredulity, indifference, and even hostility”
upon their return to their communities. Although the allies won the war against Nazism in Europe, antisemitism has never been defeated, and fascism grew rapidly in the UK in the post-war years, contrary to the narrative of triumph over Hitler.
Jewish soldiers such as Morris Beckman and Jules Kanopinski returned to London to find fascists staging outdoor rallies in the east end,
“shouting out the same antagonism and the same filth as before the war, and now even worse—they were saying the gas chambers weren’t enough”.
The anti-fascist 43 Group that they and their comrades established, and the later 62 Group, would be breaking up, on average, 15 fascist meetings a week and engaging in regular physical confrontation with fascists, including in the battle for Ridley Road, which was memorialised this year in a BBC drama. The irony is not lost on me that, in the very week that Ridley Road was released, my synagogue in Manchester, where much of it was filmed, had our Friday night service gate-crashed by the far right. It may be a historical drama, but the hatred in it is very much contemporary.
I have sat in synagogue while fellow Jews have been slaughtered elsewhere in the world for practising their faith, as I am, and so to proclaim our faith proudly, to stand as proud Jews, is itself an act of defiance. As the partisan vow declares, “Mir veln zey iberlebn”, which means, we will outlive them. From generation to generation, the Jewish spirit endures.
In Kveller, Rachel Stomel writes:
“In the context of Jewish law, remembrance is not a reflexive, passive process directed inwards. Our sages teach us that the way we fulfil the Torah’s commandment to remember the Sabbath—'Zachor et Yom HaShabbat le’kodsho’ (remember the sabbath day to keep it holy)—is by active declaration in the performance of the kiddush, the Shabbat blessing over wine. We are commanded to remember the Amelikites brutal massacre of our people—'Zachor et Asher asah lecha Amalek’ (remember what the Amalek did to you)—through intentional, public, verbal affirmation, and by ridding the world of the evil that they represent. Neither of these Torah commandments can be fulfilled by quiet contemplation, memorialisation must manifest through specific action.”
The theme for this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “One Day,” both as a call to action for that one day when we have eradicated the hatred that leads to genocide and because one day, as a snapshot of what happened, can be helpful in seeking to understand and process the enormity of the holocaust. The brutality and the hopelessness of the concentration camps and the lengths to which the Nazis went to extinguish any faint glimmers of hope are summed up in this quote from the survivor Shlomo Venezia, who was forced to work in the Sonderkommando at Auschwitz, emptying the gas chambers of bodies, including those of family members, processing their hair and teeth, and loading them into the ovens for cremation. He said:
“One day, while I was presenting my testimony at a school, a young girl asked me if anyone had ever emerged from the gas chamber alive. Her schoolmates laughed at her, as if she hadn’t understood a thing. How could anyone survive in those conditions, when the deadly gas used had been carefully developed to kill everyone? It’s impossible. In spite of everything, however absurd her question may seem, it was quite relevant, since it did indeed happen.
Few people ever saw and can relate this episode, and yet it is true. One day when everyone had started working normally after the arrival of a transport, one of the men involved in removing the bodies from the gas chamber heard a strange noise. It wasn’t so unusual to hear strange noises, since sometimes the victims’ bodies continued to emit gas. But this time he claimed the noise was different. We stopped and pricked up our ears, but nobody could hear anything. We told ourselves that he’d surely been hearing voices. A few minutes later, he again stopped and told us that this time he was certain he’d heard a death rattle. And when we listened closely, we, too, could hear the same noise. It was a sort of wailing. To begin with, the sounds were spaced out, then they came more frequently until they became a continuous crying that we all identified as the crying of a newborn baby. The man who had heard it first went to see where exactly the noise was coming from. Stepping over the bodies, he found the source of those little wailings. It was a baby girl, barely two months old, still clinging to her mother’s breast and vainly trying to suckle. She was crying because she could feel that the milk had stopped flowing. He took the baby and brought it out of the gas chamber. We knew it would be impossible to keep her with us. Impossible to hide her or get her accepted by the Germans. And indeed, as soon as the guard saw the baby, he didn’t seem at all displeased at having a little baby to kill. He fired a shot and that little girl who had miraculously survived the gas was dead. Nobody could survive. Everybody had to die, including us: it was just a matter of time.”
Elie Wiesel speaks of watching Jewish babies thrown alive into the vast ditches where bodies were burned, confirmed by Telford Taylor at the Nuremberg trials. Lily Ebert testifies of witnessing babies torn from their mothers’ arms and dashed against walls. I have seen the piles of teeth, hair and shoes that represent a tiny fraction of those who passed through Auschwitz-Birkenau, and how small those chambers were, with up to 1,200 people piled into a tiny space so that no poison gas would be wasted. This was not, as we might imagine, a quick process, with it taking up to 12 minutes to be poisoned to death, crushed in among hundreds of panicking people, desperately trying to cling to life, trying to break or claw their way out. Seven hundred Jews were murdered in the gas chambers on the very day before they were set to be liberated and many more died by disease or by suicide in the months following liberation. There are some things that a human just cannot endure.
These survivors witnessed day in, day out what no human being should ever be condemned to see: the very depths of man’s cruelty and inhumanity towards his fellow man laid bare. The Hasidic mystic, the Baal Shem Tov, said:
“If a man has beheld evil, he may know that it was shown to him in order that he learn his own guilt and repent; for what is shown to him is also within him.”
If man can sink to these depths once, to industrialise the brutalisation and murder of their fellow humans, they can and will do so again. Indeed, “never again” rings hollow with the genocides that have taken place since the holocaust, and our failure as a nation to learn the lessons of the past as this Government turn away refugees from other parts of the world knowing full well the fate of the refugees from the holocaust denied safe passage to Britain and the US, and returned to their deaths.
We allow a minority in public life to degrade and debase the memory of the holocaust—to make inappropriate comparisons with modern day events as though there can be any parallel drawn, rhetorical or otherwise, between, for example, those who choose not to be vaccinated, or a particularly poor performance in the football, and the experience of the victims of Nazi persecution. We still see the cancer of antisemitism in our communities, with the threat of hate crime in person and online a daily reality that we should not have to live alongside.
Today we honour the victims, the survivors, the heroes and the martyrs of the holocaust. We cannot change the past, but by bearing witness we can change the course of the future. Ira Goldfarb said of his father, the survivor Aron Goldfarb, that
“throughout my father’s life, survival adopted a new meaning. Survival to my father was carrying the nightmares of his childhood and choosing to find joy, humor, and compassion in life every single day. Survival was seeing the worst of humanity and still offering his last piece of bread to someone who needed it more, still building lifelong friendships, and being a devoted husband and father.”
It is hard not to be moved by photos of a beaming Lily Ebert celebrating her 98th birthday in lockdown with thousands of cards sent by well-wishers, or welcoming the birth of her 35th great-grandchild. I can think of few people more deserving of happiness. May we draw strength from their strength, and courage from their courage, as we build a more decent, respectful and inclusive society where all of us can live in peace, harmony and security.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The whole House appreciates the hon. Lady’s courage in delivering such a powerful and moving speech, which I hope will be taken note of widely.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
I quote:
“I have a request of you: this is the real reason why I write, that my doomed life may attain some meaning, that my hellish days and hopeless tomorrows may find a purpose in the future.”
These chilling words are those of Zalman Gradowski, a Polish Jew deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau and forced to be a cog in a factory of death. Zalman was forced to be a member of the sonderkommando, a group of Jewish prisoners forced to perform a variety of duties in the gas chambers and crematoriums. In October 1944, Zalman led this group in revolt and managed to destroy one of the crematoriums. He was murdered during this revolt. Knowing he would soon be killed, Zalman wrote his first-person account of what he described as the “inferno of death” that he was living in and hid these words in the ashpit of crematorium 3, hoping that one day a citizen of the free world will find them and tell the story of him and his family. Zalman asks in his writings:
“Can the dead mourn the dead? But you, unknown ‘free’ citizen of the world, I beg you to shed a tear for”
my family
“when you have their pictures before your eyes. I dedicate all my writings to them—this is my tear, my lament for my family and people.”
I wish to now grant Zalman’s wish and list the names of his murdered family members for all to hear, know and remember in this place: his mother, Sarah; his sister, Libe; his sister, Esther Rokhl; his wife, Sonia; his father-in-law, Raphael; and his brother-in-law, Wolf. They were all killed on 8 December 1942, gassed and incinerated. They have no grave. Zalman also mentions his father, Shmuel, his two brothers, Eber and Moyshl, and his sister Feygeleh, who were all taken and never seen again. This was his entire family, and they will never be forgotten.
An estimated 1.3 million Jewish people were deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau, and 1.1 million were murdered. When allied troops liberated the concentration and death camp 77 years ago today, just 9,000 prisoners were found alive. All in all, an estimated 6 million Jewish men, women and children were murdered in the holocaust.
The holocaust was not the birth of antisemitism, and sadly neither was it the end. It is the world’s oldest form of hatred and has taken on many forms over the centuries. However, the same themes always seem to prevail: Jews are made scapegoats, forced to answer for the actions of others, and they are depicted as both weak and all powerful.
Just two weeks ago, a British man walked into a synagogue in Texas and took the rabbi and three congregants as hostages. Why? Because he believed that the Jews of that small congregation had the power to grant his demands. I saw the effect that the incident had on my Jewish friends: they stayed glued to their phones and TVs all night praying for a peaceful outcome; they went to sleep not knowing whether they would wake up to yet another massacre of fellow Jews in their sacred house of worship.
It is a sad state of affairs when synagogues all over the world are still forced to be guarded by soldiers, police or security and when Jewish schoolkids in this country must still take part in regular terrorist drills and be prepared for the worst in case it happens. I pay tribute to the incredible work of the Community Security Trust and its volunteers, who work tirelessly to keep the UK Jewish community safe.
The Secretary of State for Education rightly calls antisemitism a virus that continues to mutate. As we know, the best way to deal with a mutating virus is to vaccinate. Education will always be the vaccine against all forms of hatred. For that reason, I commend the work of the amazing charities, organisations and their staff who dedicate their time to ensuring that the next generation are taught about the evils of antisemitism and where that hatred can lead.
The Holocaust Educational Trust is an amazing charity and one I was proud to work for myself. I am glad that two of my staff members, Alex Moore and Bradley Langer, are ambassadors for the trust; Bradley also works for them. Holocaust Memorial Day might just be one day a year, but the staff of the trust work hard all year round, travelling to schools across the country and teaching about the horrors of the holocaust. They have now taken over 41,000 young people to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau through their Lessons from Auschwitz project, giving them the opportunity to see that historical site for themselves. They campaign tirelessly against those who try to deny or distort the holocaust and they help survivors share their testimony with anyone who will listen.
I also commend the innovative work of George Salter Academy, in my own constituency, as part of the University College London Beacon School programme—a flagship initiative led by the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education. They are truly leading the way in holocaust education in West Bromwich East.
I also pay tribute to Freddie Knoller BEM, who very sadly passed away yesterday aged 100. Freddie was an Auschwitz survivor and a resistance fighter, and his work and fight against antisemitism will never be forgotten.
Sadly, one day in the near future, the holocaust will move from being living history to just history. All of us who have had the honour of hearing a survivor share their testimony are now their witness. It is up to us to carry on their legacy, to say to our children, “I met a Holocaust survivor; I listened to their testimony. It happened to them and their family, and it must never be allowed to happen again.”
I would like to end this speech on a positive note by also celebrating the incredible Lily Ebert BEM. At age 20, when she was deported to Auschwitz, she made herself the promise that if she survived she would tell everyone the truth of what happened to her and her family. She has made millions of people around the world her witness and continues to jump at every opportunity to share her story. I wish Lily a huge “Mazal tov” on the arrival of her 35th great-grandchild, and I echo her remark that the Nazis did not win.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I start by paying tribute to all those who have secured this debate and those who have already spoken so movingly, thoughtfully and powerfully. I say to the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who opened the debate, how moved I was by what he disclosed about the comments made to him and his family. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) that the solidarity of the House is with the right hon. Gentleman and his family. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) for all her work in this area, over so many years.
Today marks the 77th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Today, we remember those 6 million Jewish men, women and children murdered during the holocaust, alongside millions of other people killed under Nazi persecution and in all subsequent genocides. This Holocaust Memorial Day is as important as ever in marking the memory of those terrible events.
I was reflecting that I visited Auschwitz some years ago with the Holocaust Educational Trust. One of my most striking memories is of the huge piles of luggage, dolls and toys, shoes and other ordinary, mundane items, which were probably those that meant the most to the people who were murdered in that camp. I will always remember that about Auschwitz—the ordinary and mundane alongside the most evil.
The holocaust is fading from lived memory, with the gradual passing of those who suffered and survived and of those in the greatest generation, who fought the Nazis and liberated the camps and Europe. It is up to all of us to ensure that this history and its lessons are never forgotten. I, like many others, pay tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust for the brilliant work that it does, and to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, as well.
After the events of recent years with covid, I look forward to once again meeting Hull’s remaining Jewish ex-servicemen and the community in Hull who gather every Remembrance Sunday to mark these events, and the immense contribution of the Jewish community to our country and to our very survival. As a member of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, I am proud of the work that we do in maintaining the graves of so many Jewish ex-servicemen and women who fell while defending our country.
As we know, we need to be vigilant as there are those who still seek to deny the facts about the holocaust, a form of fake news spread for decades by antisemites, challenging whether the holocaust actually happened or the magnitude of it, and more recently questioning the internationally agreed definition of antisemitism. Remembering what happened in the holocaust is even more important, as we have seen a rise in antisemitism abroad and here in the United Kingdom. The first half of 2021 saw the highest number of antisemitic incidents in a six-month period recorded by the Community Security Trust. It is important that we note the work that trust does, day in, day out, providing security and keeping the people of the Jewish faith safe.
We must ask ourselves, why is that trust still required and why have we failed to combat the pernicious hatred of Jews that lingers, particularly online? Online disinformation often parrots long-standing antisemitic tropes that demonise Jewish people as happened in Germany in the 1930s; now they are spread by digital technology. The right hon. Member for Newark set out some shocking statistics about what can be found on social media platforms. This House must do something about that. Other hon. Members have talked about antisemitic messages around the covid anti-vaxxers, which are sadly too prevalent on social media.
We must be aware of the different forms that antisemitism takes in the United Kingdom. It is no longer just the far right and skinheads trying to sell National Front publications in Brick Lane. Shamefully, in recent years my party allowed the stain of antisemitism to find a home in the party. Under the leadership of the current leader of the Labour party, we are working very hard indeed to combat that.
The horror of the holocaust has reshaped our understanding of international law, human rights and collective security after 1945. We have a responsibility to people throughout the world to protect them from persecution, but I regret to say that we have too often failed. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on human rights, and we are only too well aware of the growing breaches of human rights around the world. We know that too many genocides have been carried out since the holocaust—in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur, to name but a few—and we should also be shamed by the current genocide being carried out against the Uyghurs in China, the plight of Christians in some countries, what happened to the Yazidi women, and what is happening now to the women in Afghanistan. Of course, there is also the stain of Islamophobia, which is still around in our communities and institutions and which needs far more attention. It is the “othering” of groups that we need to be vigilant about and take action to tackle, and we need to recognise where that “othering” can lead.
The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “One Day”, but we must continue the work to eradicate antisemitism and hatred, in this country and throughout the world. Antisemites, of whatever variety, are invariably the enemies of peace, freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Only by defeating them, and all those who peddle hatred and prejudice, can we live in confidence that we will never see another holocaust.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Instances of genocide continue, and, very sadly, I have been witness to them—in particular, in Bosnia during 1992-93, when I commanded the battle group of the 1st Battalion, The Cheshire Regiment. Let me give the House an example.
On 22 April 1993, I learnt that women and children had been massacred in a village in the Lašva valley. I did not believe it, so I went there, taking about 30 men and about six vehicles. As I approached the village of Ahmići from the south, I was struck by what a beautiful place it was, or had been. The first building I saw was the mosque, which was new, but wrecked. The minaret had been broken by explosions, and it was pointing at the sky like a pencil. Most of the other buildings in the village—it was a linear village, about a mile in length—had been destroyed by fire. Some had not been destroyed; we later discovered that they belonged to Bosnian Croats, not Bosnian Muslims.
Each building had been destroyed by fire, explosions or shooting. The windows had black marks around them, and the roofs had collapsed. Only later, because we did not see it immediately, we discovered that bodies were underneath the roofs. Outside the houses, the gardens looked kind of normal, except for the detritus of war: downed cables, bricks, burnt-out cars, and dead pets. Everywhere was the disgusting smell which comes from the chemical reactions that accompany death. It was cloying and it was foul.
I went all the way to the far end of the village, the north end. I deployed my men, and we started looking. We did not see bodies initially—until we came to house number seven. The murderers had failed to disguise what had happened there. At an entrance to the house, there was a man and a boy. They were dead. They looked like they had been burnt. They did not seem to have clothing on them. The little boy, or the teenage boy, had his arm upwards in front of his face, and his fist was balled, and the bones had been burnt through.
My soldiers said, “Look behind the house, Sir.” I went into a cellar. The cellar had agricultural tools and strings of onions or vegetables on the walls. In the middle, there was this mass—this greyish, blackish mass. I did not really understand what I was looking at—then I did! The first thing that hit me was the disgusting smell, and then I realised I was looking at bodies—at least two adults, several children. One of the women, and they were women, presumably being protected by the men who were killed at the door, had her back so arched back. Her back was bent—she was lying, and her head was back. God! She was burnt. Everything was burnt, except for her eyes. Her eyes were not burnt. I fell back in horror at what I had found. I rushed outside and was violently sick.
Later, one of my soldiers, and he was a bandsman, because we used the band as stretcher bearers and I asked the band to help clean up, was shovelling the remains—shovelling the remains—of a human being into a bag on a stretcher, and he turned to me and said, “Sir, this is Europe in 1993, not Europe in 1943.” I did not know what to say.
On the memorial in that village, which I am going to visit shortly—at Easter—there are 116 names of everyone killed, as far as can be ascertained. My men and I dug a mass grave and put, as far as we could tell, over 104 bodies into that mass grave. They were Bosnian Muslims; there was not a Bosnian Croat among them.
We did not just discover them, but found families lined up—shot down. One little girl was holding a puppy. The puppy was dead, and so was she, killed presumably by the same bullet. We took that family to the local morgue. Next day, we went back and discovered that the bodies had been put back at the house because it was the wrong morgue. We had taken them to a Croat morgue, not a Muslim morgue.
Within a month, I was in Srebrenica and watched more genocide occurring, this time with Bosnian Serb artillery firing at human beings. There were about 20 people killed around us as we went. Some of my soldiers were slightly wounded, no one killed.
You see, I consider Holocaust Memorial Day to be so incredibly important not just because of the people who were killed in the second world war in the 1930s and the 1940s. It was not just the second world war: the Germans, or the Nazis—forgive me, I am not talking about the Germans; I am talking about the Nazis—managed to start doing it before the second world war. Then we have had instances since, with Darfur, Bosnia that I have witnessed, Rwanda and Cambodia.
My mother visited Belsen in 1945. She was in the Special Operations Executive. I did not know that until a few years before she died. I did not know she was a spy. Women are always much better at keeping secrets than men. I said to her, “Why, mum, have you never told me that you went to Belsen in 1945 looking for SOE officers?” She said, “Robert, I was ashamed.” I said, “Why were you ashamed? You did things like learn to parachute when you were 22 and put yourself in danger. You did everything you could.” Colleagues, she said, “I was ashamed because it happened in my generation.”
The purpose of Holocaust Memorial Day, and the memorial of all those people who died in the second world war and all those who have died in genocides since, is for us to feel collective responsibility for stopping it from happening again. That is why this day, and this memory of all those innocents who have died, is so incredibly important.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
First, I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for having secured this debate. It is a privilege to follow the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), whose speech, giving first-hand witness testimony to genocide, is so important in this place. It is always a privilege and an honour to listen to him speak on Holocaust Memorial Day and on other occasions when he recounts his service, not just to our country but to the Bosnian Muslim community. This debate is always a difficult debate for me personally, as a descendant of victims of the holocaust, so I apologise if at any point, I get a little emotional and have to pause for a second or two. I am sure that everybody in the Chamber understands.
As others have done, I thank the Holocaust Educational Trust, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, Yad Vashem, the POLIN Museum—which is actually in the Warsaw ghetto—the Holocaust Exhibition and Learning Centre near me in Huddersfield, and those organisations that fight antisemitism today such as the Antisemitism Policy Trust, HOPE not hate, the Community Security Trust, and others. There are many organisations that both keep the holocaust alive today and fight antisemitism, and we should be grateful to them all.
This year’s theme, as we know, is “One Day”, and for me, that means that we have hope that there may be one day in the future with no genocide. It is also about one day in the lives of victims of genocide, when they themselves are facing that genocide every day, and know that that day might be the last day they live. They wake with that thought beguiling their senses, and if they are fortunate enough to survive that trauma, the trauma lives with them and becomes intergenerational trauma. I am not sure how many generations that trauma persists for, as two generations separated, I still feel that trauma, especially on days like this. I hope my children do not feel it, and are not driven by some of the same fears that generations of Jewish and other people have felt.
One of my drivers here in Parliament is that genocide must end and that we must strive for human rights for all, so I speak out for the Rohingya and the Uyghurs, and act as the chair of International Parliamentarians for West Papua. A genocide against one people is a genocide against all people, and we must stand together against genocide wherever and whenever it occurs, without any thought of our own interests. Benny Wenda, from the Free West Papua Campaign, gave me this message for Holocaust Memorial Day. He is exactly the same age as me, so in context, this is 30-odd years ago that he is talking about:
“When I was a child, my village was bombed by the military and many of my family members were killed. I have witnessed my own aunties being raped and dying of their injuries and my mother being brutally beaten in front of my eyes.
Although we carry this burden, we also carry great hope. Our hope is for the next generation to be free from persecution, free from violence, and free from oppression. One day. We carry the hope of peace, and we look to the lessons of our shared history to guide the way.”
I hope that more Members present might join the all-party parliamentary group on West Papua, and find out more about the genocide that is carrying on there to this day.
I want to finish by telling the story of one part of my own family. My paternal great-grandfather was David Laks. He was murdered by the Nazis in the Belzec death camp in 1942. Teresa, my maternal great-grandmother, died of natural causes in 1938 before the start of the war. David and Teresa had five children. Salka and Fanka were the eldest daughters. They lived in central Poland and were murdered, along with their families, in unknown circumstances—I really did not think I would get this emotional; I am sorry—by the Nazis.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We all greatly appreciate the good work that the hon. Gentleman does in this House, but we are also very aware of the good work that he does in Papua New Guinea; I think he has been an inspiration to us all. I hope that that gives him the chance that he needs to continue.
Alex Sobel
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me that chance to pause and collect myself. It is very useful in debates such as this to have colleagues who will do that.
The middle child was called Zygmunt; I will come back to him later. The fourth child was my grandmother Regina, who survived the war and lived into old age. The youngest sibling was my great-aunt Marisia, whom I have spoken about in a previous Holocaust Memorial Day debate.
I am going to describe one day in the life of Zygmunt Laks and his family—his wife Guta and their son Karol, who was born in 1939. Zygmunt Laks lived in the Łódź ghetto and worked in a garage after the Nazis took away the family restaurant. The situation in the ghetto worsened; Zygmunt stopped work and just sat in the ghetto apartment with a large axe, waiting for the Nazis to come and take them away. There was an easing in the situation in the ghetto, so he decided to go back to work, but the next day he returned from work and his wife and son were gone. On that day, an SS officer shot Karol, who was just two years old, in the head in front of his mother.
Karol was my uncle—a child who never got to see adulthood, an uncle I never met. I often think about how small my family is: I am an only child of only children, with very few relatives. A lot of our family are just ghosts—just ghosts of the past who were taken away from us by the holocaust.
Guta was never seen or heard of again, but it is assumed that she, too, was taken to Belzec death camp and never returned. Belzec is one of the lesser-known death camps, but it is estimated that as many as 800,000 may have perished there in the very short period—just two years—in which it was in operation. Zygmunt eventually escaped the ghetto to Ukraine, but was killed by a bomb as the war was ending and never returned home.
That this part of my family history survives is due to my aunt, Aviva Hay, who compiled her father’s memoir into a book, “We Are What We Remember”, a holocaust memoir of our family. My father, who I know is watching at home, contributed to this account and very much keeps alive the deep and scarring memories of our family’s experience in the Shoah.
The most tragic thing for me is that the fate of the Laks family is not unique or rare; it is the common story of European Jewry. Today is so important, because we have one day each year that we can share and remember—one day to say that we will not forget—but we have every other day to do all we can to strive for a better world and no more genocide.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who shared with the House such powerful and important emotional experiences. We respect him greatly for having had the courage to do that today.
I draw the House’s attention to my interests, as set out in the register, and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on launching this important debate for the House of Commons and the country so eloquently today. I echo the comments he made about our very good friend, the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who sadly cannot be with us today but with whom I have worked extremely closely for many years on issues of economic crime and dirty money. Any cause that she supports and to which she brings her formidable powers is one worthy of the House’s greatest attention.
Every year, we convene in this Chamber and in venues around the country to proclaim, “Never again”—never again will we stay silent in the face of hatred, never again will we stand by as people are murdered because of who they are, never again will a holocaust be allowed to happen. Yet, around the world, these things are happening again and again. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), with very direct experience, once again impressed the House hugely with his knowledge and understanding of these things, but the words of his mother—that we have a duty in our generation, a duty that cannot be shirked—were particularly powerful.
We have shamefully borne witness to genocides in Bosnia. I have stood among the gravestones at Srebrenica, not many hundreds of miles from here, in Europe, marvelling at what took place there. I have stood in Darfur and heard testimony and witness, particularly from women, about the brutality of what George Bush, the President of the United States, described as a genocide. We have seen these things in Burma too, and in Rwanda, where in 1994 nearly 1 million people, predominantly Tutsis, were murdered by their Hutu neighbours over 90 days.
I would like to focus my comments on Rwanda and the genocide there because the UK now has a connection to it, although it is not widely known. Once the killing stopped, those allegedly responsible for these appalling events fled far and wide, some to neighbouring countries, others to Europe, North America and Canada. I regret to say that, in the UK today, five people suspected of taking part in the genocide are living freely among us.
Over the years, many countries, such as Sweden and Canada, which initially harboured the suspects, went on to extradite them to Rwanda to face trial in the gacaca courts. Other countries, notably Germany, prosecuted the suspects in their own domestic courts. Britain has done neither, even though, extraordinarily, the arrest warrants were issued as long ago as 2006. In 2015 and 2017, a British district judge and our own High Court ruled that, even though the evidence was compelling, none of the suspects could be sent back to Rwanda, because such action could breach their human rights. While I did not agree with that assessment, given that Rwanda had long abolished the death penalty and constructed a justice system that was considered progressive, I had faith that Britain would none the less deliver justice by placing the suspects on trial here. This country has comprehensive legislation that allows for the prosecution of suspects accused of war crimes, irrespective of their nationality or the countries in which the crimes took place. With no statute of limitations, there is no legitimate reason why justice should not be expedited. I was a Member of this House when that legislation was passed.
Bob Stewart
I thank my right hon. and very good Friend for making that point. I have given evidence in four war crimes trials in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. I also formed an organisation in 2000 to chase war criminals—it did not last long, but we tried. May I entirely endorse the last comments my right hon. Friend made, about us in this country chasing war criminals until they die?
Mr Mitchell
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said.
As to the circumstances I described, we are, alas, still waiting. Last March, a group of senior Members of Parliament and peers, including no fewer than three former distinguished Law Officers, decided it was time to act. Firm in the belief that the UK should be no safe haven for war criminals, we set up the all-party parliamentary group on war crimes, with the sole purpose of seeing what could be done to accelerate the investigations and legal proceedings. I have the honour of co-chairing this group with Lord Jon Mendelsohn, former secretary of the original war crimes group, which was instrumental in passing the legislation to which I referred. That legislation is available, and is relevant to the Rwanda case I mentioned. In the last 10 days, we have sent a letter to the Home Secretary, and copied it to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Mayor of London, the Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor, because we want a specific, proper response, with dates and details of the legal process that must now take place in respect of the people concerned.
The job of the new war crimes group is not to presuppose the guilt or innocence of the suspects. We simply want to ensure that due process is followed, and that justice, already excessively long delayed, is not denied. After all, it would be wrong to have these serious allegations hanging over the five suspects for 16 years if they turn out to be untrue. The apparent inertia—the lack of grip, concern or urgency—shames us all.
I would like to say that the APPG has made progress in getting answers to the questions that we have posed to the investigating authorities, but alas, the answer is a flat no. One of the problems that we have identified is that the UK’s former dedicated war crimes unit, set up in the 1990s to investigate suspected Nazi criminals, no longer exists. In its absence, there is a sub-group operating under the auspices of SO15, the Met police’s counter-terrorism command. That group has neither the budget nor the manpower to bring the matter to a conclusion; and aside from that, terrorism and war crimes are two quite separate things, each requiring its own specialised skillset.
Germany’s war crimes unit is able to draw on the full panoply of state support. Only a few weeks ago, we heard that a Syrian war criminal was tried and convicted in a German court under the principle of universal jurisdiction. That arrest took place only in 2019, yet Britain is struggling to complete a process that started 16 years ago. The main problem is that we simply do not have the resolve or the political will demonstrated by other countries to ensure the availability of necessary resources. Denmark does; the Netherlands do; and clearly Germany does. Why are we so far behind?
Britain has the rule of law and accountability—values that we should cherish, uphold and promote at all times. The situation is inexcusable. We must demonstrate the same sense of resolve and urgency when it comes to Rwanda as we rightly did with regard to suspected Nazi war criminals. Failure to do so would send the very dangerous and damaging message that the UK could become a refuge for war criminals. We may not always have the power to prevent atrocities, but if we truly care about the victims of genocide, the least we can do is offer the survivors justice. The souls of those murdered in the Rwandan genocide cry out for justice, but from Britain they hear only a deafening silence.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) for securing this debate. I also thank hon. Members who have spoken powerfully this afternoon, particularly the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who told us of their personal experiences. I was horrified to hear of the racist attack experienced by the family of the right hon. Member for Newark. I join colleagues in reaffirming my commitment to working with him on fighting racist hatred.
Holocaust Memorial Day is an opportunity to remember, reflect and reaffirm—remember the atrocities of the past, reflect on their lasting impact around the world, and reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that we never see such atrocities again. As other Members have done, I want to pay tribute to the important work done by the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, which plays an important role in amplifying the voice of survivors and ensuring their stories are not forgotten. I attended its virtual events yesterday and was particularly moved by the testimony of holocaust survivor Dr Martin Stern. Stories like Dr Stern’s make such a difference. Only by hearing these stories told can future generations learn from the past and continue to work to prevent genocide around the world.
I was born in south-east Turkey and grew up hearing stories about the horrors faced by the Armenian people in that region. Almost 100 years ago, a whole culture and a whole people were systematically destroyed and had their identity erased in an act of appalling violence. Families were torn apart, with children never seeing their parents again. Some 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children were killed. Vibrant, centuries-old communities were simply wiped off the face of the map.
Now, over a century later, the fight of Armenian communities around the world for justice and recognition goes on. The Armenian community in the UK has been consistently at the forefront of that fight. I praise the work of the Armenian National Committee, which is a fantastic advocate for the UK Armenian diaspora. There are many colleagues across the House who have been passionate friends of the Armenian community in the UK. In particular, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who sits alongside me as a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Armenia, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for their tireless campaigning on this issue.
Despite their campaigning and that of so many others in the UK, the Government are several steps behind the position of many of our European neighbours. France, Germany, Austria, Poland and Denmark are just some of the countries that have taken the step of acknowledging that the horrendous acts that occurred constitute a genocide. The devolved Administrations in Cardiff and Edinburgh have also taken that important step, yet still our Government refuse to do so. In April last year, we saw the incredibly important moment when President Biden recognised the Armenian genocide, the first time the American Government had officially done so. Why then, are we in the UK so far behind others when it comes to recognition?
It is time that the Government acted to provide Armenian communities in the UK with the recognition they have been fighting for. What happened to Armenian people 100 years ago was a genocide,, and it is about time that our Government recognised that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), who remembered another genocide that took place in the world.
It is fair to say that antisemitism is nothing new. We only have to look back to Shakespeare to see that antisemitism was rife during that period in our history. It has been prevalent in societies across the world for centuries and it is still prevalent today. I recalled earlier the attack on shopkeepers in Stamford Hill only yesterday. What makes the holocaust different is that it shows the ultimate destination of antisemitism: a systematic attempt to wipe out the Jewish race and anyone of Jewish religion—not just people who were openly Jewish, but anyone who had Judaism in their genealogy. I speak as someone in that position. I would not be here today if I had been alive in Germany in those times. That demonstrates the way in which people’s backgrounds were traced to see whether any relative or any person of Jewish blood was present. It was systematic, deliberate and intentional.
I was at school with many Jewish children. No one spoke about the holocaust. Half of my class were Jewish, but no one ever spoke about the holocaust during those days. It was ignored, perhaps to be airbrushed from history forever, because it was such a tragedy. The relatives—fathers and mothers—of many of my friends had come from eastern Europe as refugees, but they never spoke about the holocaust either. When we were at school, we never got the opportunity to learn about its horrors and what people went through at that time.
I remember my first visit to Yad Vashem. It was not the Yad Vashem we see today; it was a much smaller, more intimate formation in its early days, going back to 1992. It was a pivotal moment for me on my first visit to Israel, seeing Jerusalem, seeing Yad Vashem and seeing first-hand what had gone on during the holocaust. It had the first ever recordings of survivors—people who had sadly passed away, but who had recorded their testimony in advance—plus early photographs and other details of what had gone on in Germany and eastern Europe in particular during the holocaust.
That made Yad Vashem more intimate, in many ways, than it is now. It is a much bigger operation now, with much more testimony and evidence of what happened, but when I heard the names of the children who had been murdered by the Nazis being recited, one name after another, it brought home to me how people could commit such systematic murder of children—wipe them off the face of the planet—and what a terrible experience it was.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I have had the privilege of visiting Yad Vashem four or five times now, and I remember on one particular occasion going into the cave the hon. Gentleman describes, where the recordings of children’s names and ages just continue. By coincidence, there was a run of names, two boys and a girl, the same age that my two boys and my daughter were at that time. I broke down in tears, because that is where it really hits home: “This could be you. There but for the grace of God go we all. If politics turns nasty and turns against you, this is the end result.” That is why Yad Vashem and all holocaust memorials are so important.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I freely admit—I am not ashamed to say it—that I cried. I cried for humanity, I cried for the people who had been lost and I cried for our whole being and how we could ever have allowed such a thing to happen.
I declare my interest as co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on holocaust memorial. I look forward to the holocaust memorial and learning centre’s being built, so we can have our own facility where we can commemorate the lives of those who were lost, and commemorate those who survived. When I was first elected to the House in 2010, the first all-party group I joined was the APPG on combating antisemitism. It is right that, across the House and on both sides of the political divide, we stand against antisemitism.
I have visited Auschwitz-Birkenau, and I believe I share the view of most students who have seen Auschwitz for only one day that it would be better if people could stay a little longer, just to appreciate even further the terrible crimes that were committed. The problem with that, of course, is funding, and the fact that lengthening the amount of time spent away might reduce the numbers who could go on such visits.
The problem I see with the programme of Auschwitz-Birkenau visits is that students learn about what went on there and think that that was it. We must remember that it was not just Auschwitz-Birkenau: there was a network of death camps and forced labour camps right across eastern Europe and Germany, where Jews and others were forced into slave labour and then systematically exterminated.
I have often wondered how a civilised nation such as Germany could get into a position to commit such inhumane acts. When we talk about 6 million Jews being killed, it is a number; it is hard to personalise that down to individual circumstances. It is hard to visualise the horror of the attempt to wipe out the Jewish race. We should remember that it did not take place over one or two years. It was a deliberate, long-term attempt by the Nazis to eliminate the Jewish race.
We should also remember that the roots of the holocaust go back to the end of the great war. Germany was subjected to severe reparations. That led to incredible poverty in Germany, which then gave rise to the Nazis, who could say, “It’s the Jews’ fault you haven’t got any money. Let’s take it out on the Jews. If we take Jews out of their position, we can spread the wealth.” It was a deliberate policy of the Nazi party to spread this hatred and it should never, ever be allowed to be repeated. There needs to be a greater understanding and appreciation that, from the early 1930s onwards, this systematic approach led to the Shoah. We have to remember that.
We must also remember that antisemitism was rife in this country at that time, and we should not think that it was not going on elsewhere either. That thought process and the demeaning of Jewish people was going on, and that is one reason why few people were allowed to escape from Germany and come here. Had they been allowed to do so, many people who lost their lives in the camps would have survived.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute once again to pay tribute to Karen Pollock and her brilliant team at the Holocaust Educational Trust, who do such wonderful work to educate people—young and old—about the horrors of the holocaust. Not everyone can go to Auschwitz-Birkenau and witness the crimes that took place. We talk, as other Members have, about the shoes, the spectacles and the clothing at Auschwitz-Birkenau, but the memory that I have above all else is walking across the park with the lakes. There is an eerie silence. There is no wildlife. No birds tweet, no animals cry and the reason why the wildlife know is that that is where the Nazis emptied the ashes from the crematorium. The wildlife know what happened there and so should we.
One aspect of the Holocaust Educational Trust’s work that has become more important is the outreach programme. Last year, more than 600 schools partnered with the trust to enhance educational provision. That is important because it allows holocaust survivors to give their first-hand testimony, lead workshops and ensure that young people understand what happened and learn lessons.
One of the most famous survivors was Gena Turgel, who lived in Stanmore in my constituency. In many ways, she was a pioneer of holocaust education, as she was going into schools and colleges way before any of the current structures were set up. She was born in Krakow and had eight brothers and sisters. She was only 16 when her home city was bombed on 1 September 1939.
Here is the part of Gena Turgel’s story that I think is most pertinent. Her family had relatives in Chicago and they planned to leave for the United States, but they made their decision too late, as the Nazis had already invaded and closed all the entry and exit points, so her family had to move to just outside Krakow. In autumn 1941, she moved into the ghetto, and then moved after some of her family were shot by the SS in the ghetto. She was then forced into a labour camp, and in 1945 to Auschwitz-Birkenau, where she was sent with her mother on the death march from Auschwitz, leaving behind her sister, who they never saw again. They then arrived in a further labour camp, were forced on to trucks, and travelled under terrible conditions to Bergen-Belsen, where they arrived in February 1945. On 15 April 1945, the British Army liberated Bergen-Belsen and among the liberators was Norman Turgel, who became Gena’s husband. Gena passed away in 2018, but her record is in a book called, “I Light a Candle”, so her legacy lives on.
Hermann Hirschberger was born in 1926 in Germany. He lived with his mother, father and older brother. He attended a local non-Jewish school, but when the Nazis said that Jewish children could not go to school any more, he was forced not to go. He was beaten up going from home to school and back again by people who were his friends when he was in school, because the Nazis had said that Jews were not allowed to exist. At 9 pm on 9 November 1938, the synagogues were burnt and businesses, homes and shops were smashed. Windows were smashed and homes and buildings were burnt to the ground. This is known as Kristallnacht, the night of broken glass.
After that, Hermann’s parents realised that they had to escape, but they could not—they were not allowed to. However, Hermann was one of the first to come on the Kindertransport to this country, where he built his family. He never saw his parents again. Hermann and his brother had a long journey to get to the UK. They were taken to a hostel in Margate, where Hermann had his bar mitzvah, and remained there for about a year. They regularly wrote to their parents. Two days after war broke out, their parents wrote to say that they had received their permits—they would be allowed to leave. However, once war broke out, they were not allowed to leave. They were sent to a camp in the Pyrenees and eventually murdered in Auschwitz- Birkenau.
In this country, Hermann and his brother were separated and then reunited. Hermann went on to marry and live in my constituency. He regularly spoke to schools about his life and what happened to Jewish people when they came to this country as refugees—by the way, it was not a happy experience for those people. We should own up to that and honour that memory.
Of course, we honour Hermann’s memory, because sadly he died on 1 January 2020. I had the privilege of meeting him on many occasions and hearing about his experiences both in this country and before he arrived. The reality is that, as time goes on, survivors are, sadly, no longer with us, so it is important that we capture their testimony and every other aspect on video, in audio and in writing.
I have had the unfortunate opportunity to witness at first hand the plight of the Rohingya and see what still happens in this world. We have a duty to ensure that people who have perpetrated murder are brought to justice and suffer for the war crimes that they have committed, and that we help and assist refugees.
The theme this year is “One Day” when we put aside all our differences to remember what happened not only in the holocaust and in persecution by the Nazis but in the genocides that have followed. We hope that one day there will no longer be any genocide. Today, we learn about the past and empathise with others, but we must take action for a better future.
I end with a quote by Iby Knill, a survivor of the holocaust, who said about the camps:
“You didn’t think about yesterday, and tomorrow may not happen, it was only today that you had to cope with and you got through it as best you could.”
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a real privilege to follow all the Members who have spoken so movingly in the debate; I am humbled by their contributions. I thank the right hon. Members for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for getting the debate organised.
The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial day is, as we all know, “One Day”. When holocaust and genocide survivors are asked to provide testimony, they often start with “one day”. One day, Franziska Schwarz Mikus was sterilised by the Nazis because she was deaf, as part of their process of persecuting anyone who did not fit their ideal. In her case, it was because they believed that disabled people were imperfect and worthless. On that one day, the Nazis took control of Franziska’s body and her life choices. They wanted to prevent people whom they deemed unfit from being able to procreate.
It is estimated that between 1933 and 1939, 360,000 individuals were subjected to forced sterilisation because they had physical or mental disabilities or were simply perceived to have disabilities. Too much of this hatred and prejudice still exists. We must not forget those who were—and still are—persecuted and denied basic human rights for who they are.
Today, on Holocaust Memorial Day, we remember 6 million Jewish people murdered in the holocaust and millions of lives taken away under Nazi persecution of other groups, including Roma, Sinti, black people, gay people and disabled people. We also commemorate the genocides that took place after the holocaust in places such as Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. Currently, in Afghanistan, minority communities such as the Hazaras and Christians face persecution, too.
Tonight at 8 pm will be a national moment when people across the UK will light candles in their windows to remember those who were murdered for who they were, and stand in solidarity with those living under prejudice and hatred because of who they are in the world today. We must continue to remember, because history has taught us the danger of allowing acts of intolerance and persecution to continue unchallenged.
Unfortunately, as time passes since these events, identity-based persecution has not lessened. To take one example that has already been referred to, the rate of antisemitism in the UK has risen year on year for the past decade. According to the UK Jewish Community Security Trust, there was a 49% increase in antisemitic incidents in the first six months of 2021, compared with the previous year. Earlier this month, in another act of antisemitism, this time in Colleyville, Texas, a Jewish community was left terrified after hostages were taken by an armed man besieging a synagogue. Continual acts of vandalism and terror at synagogues, mosques, and other religious places in the UK still take place, far too often by those who wish to foster hatred.
I believe the Government should commit to a joined-up, whole of Government approach to dealing with modern atrocities, and I am heartened by some of the speeches I have heard today about war criminals, and how they are continually hunted so as to be brought to justice. Far from “never again”, we are seeing mass atrocity crimes again and again, and we need the tools to uphold legal obligations and our moral responsibilities abroad.
A broad range of non-governmental organisations and academic institutions have amassed a wealth of experience and credibility around the world, and these can be drawn on to work towards a meaningful and sustainable political dialogue. Let me give two Scottish examples. The University of Edinburgh’s Global Justice Academy has vast experience, which should help to draw attention and find solutions to what is going on across the world. An NGO based in Scotland, Beyond Borders, hosts the Women in Conflict 1325 fellowship. Its programme brings together a range of women from conflict-affected areas, providing expertise and guidance in conflict resolution, mediation and reconciliation. That is such important work.
As we know, lived experience is the most powerful witness, and we are grateful to all who share their experiences, so that we can never forget. In that regard, it is absolutely clear, and has been made clear this afternoon, that there are no “sides” in the Chamber today. I have been moved and humbled by the contributions from my colleagues. I find it hard to single out a single person, so I thank all those who have gone before me.
It seems almost unimportant in the context of what I have listened to today, but I also remember the effect on my father who was one of the armed forces who helped holocaust survivors at Bergen-Belsen and who was forever affected by what he saw. I woke up many nights with my father standing over me; he was suffering from what is now referred to as post-traumatic stress disorder, which was then totally unrecognised. My godmother and aunt told me that he never recovered from what he saw; he was never the same person again. This is why it is so important that we remember. We and our children must never be allowed to forget what happened and what is still happening. We need to make sure that what happened in the holocaust is never forgotten.
In conclusion, I thank the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for its work to keep remembrance front and centre. I also thank the Holocaust Educational Trust for what it does to help our young people understand the history of the holocaust and genocide today.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). I echo what she said earlier. Today has been a really moving day. We have had some great contributions. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who, unfortunately, is not in her place, on bringing this debate to the Chamber.
I thank the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her excellent speech. When I had the opportunity to pop back to my office to grab a bit of lunch, I made sure that I told everyone in the office to listen back to it, because it was probably one of the most moving speeches that I have heard in this place. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), whom I have known for many years, speaks from the heart. His own experience brings a wealth to this place.
Today, I join my colleagues and people around the world to commemorate those who were killed in the holocaust. It was 77 years today, on 27 January 1945, when Auschwitz-Birkenau was liberated, marking the end of oppression and killing in the largest Nazi concentration camp.
Holocaust Memorial Day is about remembering a genocide that killed 6 million Jewish people, alongside the millions of other people killed under Nazi persecution. In addition, we also remember the people who were killed in the genocides that followed—in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur.
The holocaust may have ended nearly 80 years ago, but the lessons that we must learn from genocides should remain with us in the generations to come forever. Given that it was such a tragic and disturbing point in our global history, I, like many other colleagues, find it hard to digest that it happened less than 80 years ago. However, there are still Holocaust survivors alive today who share their story so that people can hear at first hand what it was like to live in one of the darkest moments of our global history—what it was actually like for someone to be persecuted because of their ethnicity or their beliefs, and even what it was like to survive being sent to a concentration camp.
I applaud the brave men and women who choose to relive those events time and again, but who do so in the hope that their story will prevent a genocide ever happening again. I also pay tribute to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust for the work that they do to spread awareness and education of the holocaust. Colleagues have already spoken about the excellent work of Karen Pollock, and it is only right that I add my voice to what they have said.
It is unfortunate that we will not be able to hear first-hand accounts from holocaust survivors forever. There is a real worry that, because of that, our ability to connect with personal stories from survivors will reduce. This is something that we need to be conscious of, and I know that some excellent work is going on—colleagues have already spoken about this—to ensure that lived experience is retained for future generations. One of the ways that HET does so is via its excellent ambassador programme, ensuring that we do not forget the lessons of the holocaust. More than 40,000 ambassadors commit to educating themselves about the holocaust, speaking to holocaust survivors and visiting Auschwitz.This year, in the run-up to Holocaust Memorial Day, I contacted HET to arrange to speak to some ambassadors in my constituency to understand the work that ambassadors do and how they are helping to educate others about the holocaust. I had a really interesting conversation with a constituent of mine, Adam Bowers of Croxley Green, who is in year 13. Adam was able to educate me and discuss what he had learned about the programme, including doing extensive research on political extremism. He actually heard from a holocaust survivor and visited Auschwitz virtually, as unfortunately the ambassadors were unable to go in person this past year. I was incredibly impressed with the work that the ambassadors in my constituency have done in their commitment to sharing what they learned with their school and the wider community of South West Hertfordshire.
The holocausts and genocides that took place in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur are stark reminders to us all of the darkest times in humanity. It was that humanity that was lost and forgotten when the persecution of millions of innocent people took place. Let us all never forget the atrocities that have taken place before and make sure that we take the lessons from previous genocides to ensure that this never happens again.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I am truly humbled to speak in this debate today. I wish to pay tribute to and thank all speakers who have shared their family experiences and, in the case of the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), their own experiences.
Bill, a constituent of mine and fellow parishioner who I went to church with, once asked to have a few words with me. He was one of those that walked into Belsen. He said, “There isn’t enough being said about it, Marie. I am worried that people will forget.” His wife was with him, with tears flowing down her cheeks. He said he could never, ever forget what they found when they walked into Belsen—the horrors and the inhumanity that the poor people there had been treated with. Bill never slept a single night without remembering horror stories and having nightmares. I said, “Let’s have a word with Father Martin”, the priest. He said, “Oh, I can’t do that.” I said, “Come on Bill—you owe it to those people that you found.” We had a word with Martin and said, “Can we have a mass and some talk about Belsen? It would perhaps help Bill if he shared some of his experiences.” We did that. Bill was so humbled but so thankful that he had done it. Bill is now at peace and resting. His wife said how he had never, ever slept one night in peace.
The holocaust is the greatest evil that mankind has ever inflicted. It was a systematic butchery of Jews, Gypsies, Roma, homosexuals, people with disabilities, and whoever else the Nazis believed were undesirable. In the grand scheme of things, it was not that long ago that this evil occurred. Many people are still alive today who survived the barbaric concentration camps. As someone born just after the war, I am always struck by how recent the holocaust still feels. During my childhood, more and more of the harrowing details and images became public. I can still remember learning about it for the first time and wondering how such evil could ever have existed. That is why it is so important to always remember how recent it was. Today we sometimes question how such evil could have occurred in the past, yet after the war people wondered how this evil could have occurred then. The 1930s and ’40s had television, music on the radio, and free elections with women able to vote. We are not talking about a historical event that occurred in the dark ages; it happened in the modern era. That is why, when we say “Never again,” we must mean it, and we must act on it. We have to guard against antisemitism and all forms of hatred that can fester wherever they exist.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge)—one of the bravest women I know, and my very dear friend—for securing this debate. We must never forget the holocaust; it is the starkest, darkest and gravest reminder of what happens when evil, hate and prejudice are allowed to grow, and why we must stop it.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and the other Members who secured this debate. Like others, I am shocked to hear of the abuse that he and his family have endured. I extend my sympathies and my solidarity to him and to his family.
I put on the record my particular thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and the many other hon. Members across the House who have made passionate and heart-wrenching speeches about stories of the holocaust. I also thank the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust for all their work each and every day to ensure that we understand what happened, and the Community Security Trust, which works hard to continue to protect the Jewish community against rising threats of antisemitism.
My visit to Yad Vashem will stay with me for all my days. Hearing colleagues mention their experiences is heartening but very saddening. Six million Jews were tragically murdered in the holocaust, millions of others were murdered and many became displaced. To truly say “Never again,” we must remember these events every year, if not every single day.
I am grateful to hon. Members who have reminded us of those genocides that have happened since and are indeed happening in our lifetime. We cannot say that we did not know in this House. The suffering of the Rohingya in Myanmar and the genocide of the Uyghurs in China have been highlighted, but I also want to share my increasing concern about the open calls for the killing of Muslims in India.
It should worry us all in this House that the president of Genocide Watch, Dr Gregory Stanton, has reminded the world that he predicted the Rwanda genocide and is predicting that genocide could happen in India following an event at Haridwar. Indeed, a senior member of the Bharatiya Janata party, Ashwini Upadhyay, attended that Hindutva Haridwar event at which an open call to kill Muslims was made.
Some commentators have suggested that such views come from fringe groups such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, whose ideology is inspired by the Nazis, but such a view was taken before the holocaust happened. Muslims are also a minority community in India. It is incumbent on us not just as Members of this House, but as fellow human beings, not only never to allow the world to forget, but to ensure that it never happens again.
I want to put on the record the contribution of one person who is no longer with us: a special gentleman, a friend and a true hero to Bradford, whom we sadly lost last year to covid. Rudi Leavor came to Bradford with his parents and his younger sister Winnie as a refugee from Nazi Germany in 1937, aged 11, having been raised in Berlin. Rudi wrote about his journey in his memoir “Berlin to Bradford”. He said that it was a blessing in disguise when his parents were first arrested by the Gestapo:
“Had they not been arrested, we might not have escaped the fate of millions of Jews in the gas chambers of Auschwitz.”
When Rudi came to Bradford, he trained as a dentist, and in later life he gave service as the chair of a local synagogue. His lifelong service to Bradford is one that will forever remain with all Bradfordians. The cross-faith and multi-faith work that he was involved in has left a legacy, and he has left very big shoes to fill. His story, like those of so many others, needs to be heard on Holocaust Memorial Day to highlight the reality of Nazi Germany and the huge contributions that British Jews made to the UK after arriving here.
When we speak about the holocaust and look back at how the world let such things take place, we cannot ignore the scourge of everyday antisemitism, which is very real here in Britain, too—the shameful, shameful antisemitism that exists and the rise of the far right. We have seen synagogues attacked, the attack yesterday that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) referred to, the attack in Oxford Street and the driving of the cars through north London. These are all shameful acts by individuals who are clearly filled with hatred.
From January to June 2021, the Community Security Trust recorded 1,308 anti-Jewish hate incidents nationwide. That is a 49% increase from the 875 incidents recorded in the first six months of 2020. The rise of antisemitism across our society and in the online world must be challenged by individuals, but there is also a huge onus on the Government. The online harms Bill is a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation and it must be able to combat the online racism and antisemitism that is so prevalent.
Holocaust Memorial Day is a day to reflect on other genocides that have incurred huge losses of life. We remember their victims and commit to not letting atrocities, such as wars, happen again. It is also an occasion to remember Cambodia, Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia and China, as I have mentioned. Similarly, it should remind us all of the importance of standing up to all types of hate, racism and prejudice by being upstanders and not leaving communities to suffer in silence.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is an honour and privilege to follow so many moving speeches. I have been to many holocaust memorials across Germany and eastern Europe throughout my life: Bergen-Belsen, close to my home town of Hanover; Dachau; Auschwitz-Birkenau; the row of two or three houses that is all that is left of the Warsaw ghetto; and, most hauntingly, the Ponary massacre memorial outside Vilnius.
Whenever I am directly confronted with the stories of unspeakable atrocities committed by the German state during the 1930s and 1940s on the Jewish people, I feel a crushing sense of horror and shame. I was born in 1960; it was not my generation that was directly responsible for the terror. However, I feel acutely a collective responsibility for what happened in my country of origin, and that we should never forget and should work towards a world in which such awful suffering never happens again. If we want to be serious, we cannot just let the holocaust disappear into the history books—another time, another people, another place—but keep it alive and learn from it.
My grandmother was half Jewish. Her first husband was Jewish. My uncle was in Dachau in 1936, but got out with the help of Scandinavian friends. All my mother’s half brothers and sisters had to leave Germany and, except one, never returned. My grandmother’s anguish about her children and their families hung over my mother, who was the youngest, every day of her childhood. While my mother, who was only a quarter Jewish, survived Nazi Germany, her life was marred daily by exclusion, discrimination and fear. I would not be here if the war had not ended the way it did, because my mother would never have been allowed to meet my father, who was not Jewish.
My grandmother’s second husband, my grandfather, was not Jewish. He was a judge and was appointed to the Court of Appeal in Leipzig in 1927. In 1933, only months after he came to power, Hitler installed the Volksgericht, or people’s court, which was a political court to deal with anybody who was seen as an enemy of the state and which signalled the end of the rule of law. My grandfather resigned.
My grandfather’s youngest brother was schizophrenic and was murdered by the Nazis through one of the programmes of euthanasia. Although that is not directly related to the holocaust, it is worth remembering that there were German victims too, like my great-uncle, for whom there is no grave either.
My grandfather died before I was born, but I know through my mother that he never forgave himself for not becoming politically active to stop the rise of Hitler.
There are volumes and volumes of history books analysing the rise of the Nazis, citing the political instability after the first world war, the loss of national pride in being a great nation, and the Russian revolution leading to the fear of communism which drove many Germans into the arms of the fascists. It was the extremes of left and right that destroyed the moderate political centre. With that came illiberal and intolerant attitudes towards anyone who could be painted as the enemy. From there it was only a small step towards viewing people from a different race or culture as not being worthy of our human compassion and protection. The Nazis deliberately stoked irrational fear to win elections. Once Germans had elected, in a democratic vote, a barbaric leader, they could not free themselves from the monster they had helped to create. Only a world war did that.
“Wehret den Anfängen”—resist the beginnings—is what I learned from my German history lessons. The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust has published “The ten stages of genocide” so that people and communities can recognise the warning signs. Discrimination, dehuman-isation and polarisation are among those warning signs, and sadly they are part of our political reality today, under our own eyes.
The fight against intolerance, exclusion and inhumanity is ongoing. I owe it to the memory of the millions of Jews who perished in the holocaust at the hands of the country where I was born to convert the shame that I will always feel into political activism. I will stand up and speak out about the need for us to keep our eyes wide open to where barbarism begins.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) for securing this very important debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), and the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), for their incredibly moving and powerful speeches.
As has been said several times during the debate, when people think of the holocaust—the Shoah—we instantly go to Auschwitz-Birkenau. We instantly think of Bergen-Belsen . Earlier this week I was in Kyiv, in Ukraine, on a European Jewish Association delegation to Babi Yar, which was the location for the largest mass grave of 100,000 Jews who were killed one by one. There was no gas chamber; they were all shot. Their only crime was being Jewish.
While I was at that delegation, I took part in a symposium to discuss holocaust education, and the rise of antisemitism in football and on our streets across Europe. This is something that we all need to take extremely seriously. We need only consider the instances of last year, when there were not only antisemitic tropes such as blood libel on the streets of London, but convoys being driven throughout the country. It was not right then, and it is not right now.
I have spoken many times in the House about how proud I am to represent the constituency of Bury South, which is home to an extremely large and thriving Jewish community. Within that community there are a number of holocaust survivors, some of whom I have been privileged to speak with personally. I will never forget the way I was addressed by a Kindertransport survivor at a Jewish communal meeting before my election. In the United Kingdom, in 2019, he spoke about the fears for his family caused by the rise in antisemitic hate crime. To be approached in this manner and experience the dawning realisation that the lessons of the holocaust have not been learnt is something that should shock us all.
As the number of holocaust survivors tragically continues to dwindle, I also pay tribute to the second and third generations who are the children and grandchildren of the survivors. They work so hard to preserve the memory of their loved ones and ensure that future generations are aware of the holocaust, the worst crime ever committed. Let me I specifically mention the work of Noemie Lopian. She has published the memoirs of her father, a holocaust survivor, Dr Israel Bornstein. Alongside the grandson of a high- ranking SS Officer, Derek Niemann, they tour the country speaking about their families’ stories and instilling the importance of tolerance and fighting prejudice.
As has been mentioned throughout the debate, the theme of Holocaust Memorial Day this year is “One Day”. This is extremely powerful, and manages to encompass the whole lives of those poor victims and the survivors. It was inconceivable to someone having a happy childhood and growing up with a loving family that “One Day”, within a relatively short period, they would be facing the most unimaginable horrors. I read the words of a survivor, Iby Knill, who stated that from one day to the next, everything could change. She said that one day, she was greeted with an embrace; the very next day, people ran across the road to avoid being seen with her. I read the words of my constituent, Ike Alterman, someone who is rightly revered across the entire Jewish community and by royalty following his recent meetings with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. I will read the following section from his memoirs word for word:
“One day in 1942, they said that all Jewish people must congregate in the town square. You could only bring with you what you could carry in your hands and everything else you had to leave...So we were all lined up in the square, standing there for hours and hours and nothing was happening...Each line was about five deep and they started counting the people. I was standing behind my father and he told me to stay on my tiptoes to make me look taller than I was. So there was my dad, my mother, my sister and my little brother. And they came and they counted and just between my father and my mother they stopped, their hand gesture divided us. So my father and I were saved and the rest were marched out through the square...My little brother with his hands above his head. Rifles on them. Never to be seen again.”
For Ike and millions of others, the following years led them to suffer and witness abhorrent and unspeakable crimes. However, those incarcerated in the most appalling, brutal conditions dreamed that one day, they would be free. How the survivors managed this, I will never know, but they built new lives for themselves and thrived; they started businesses and had families, and now have countless numbers of grandchildren and great-grandchildren. It is therefore imperative to tell the whole story of a survivor’s life, and I therefore commend the My Voice project, which is co-ordinated by The Fed in my constituency. That project documents the life stories of holocaust survivors living in Greater Manchester, and is unique in being located in the main Jewish social care provider in Greater Manchester, which enables it to provide holistic wrap-around care to the survivors as their testimony is recounted. The concept was provided by Margit Cohen, who came to the UK on the Kindertransport in 1938. She stated,
“I have to tell you my life story, my whole life story before I die.”
My Voice captures survivors’ stories in their own voices by sound recording and transcribing the storyteller’s words into individual books. These are more than just artifacts of oral history: they are records of each person’s experience and heritage, encompassing their entire life before, during and after the war years. The project intends the completed books to be used as groundbreaking educational resources to further understanding of the persecution of Jews and other minorities by the Nazi regime; to counter prejudice and revisionism; and to give courage and hope to other survivors of tyranny and oppression. To date, 30 life story books have been produced, and a further 12 are in various stages of production. The project works closely with Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, which houses the books in its museum, and the team of volunteers who work on the project also received a Queen’s award for voluntary service. I conclude by thanking those brave survivors for telling their stories.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) and his passionate and moving speech. I thank the right hon. and hon. Members who secured this important debate, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge): I wish her well in her recovery, and thank her for all she does. I also thank the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for its vital work each and every day, and thanks must also go to the Holocaust Educational Trust for everything it does to teach future generations about the holocaust and subsequent genocides.
I will make just two brief points. The first is that when remembering and reflecting, it is crucial that we do not picture the atrocities perpetrated during the holocaust as purely historical events. The seeds of antisemitic prejudice, distrust and hatred first took root many years prior to the ghettos being built, Jewish businesses being destroyed or the trains being loaded, and despite the horrors of the holocaust, antisemitism remains with us to this day. Antisemitism is felt all too keenly by Jewish communities in this country and across the world. That is exactly why today’s debate and the events taking place across the country today are so important. We must never cease trying to understand and comprehend the pernicious antisemitism that led to the holocaust and still exists today—only then can we seek to defeat it.
Secondly, today is an opportunity to celebrate and defend the daily reminders of the Nazi defeat. Each synagogue and celebration of Jewish life in this country serves as a powerful reminder of the Jewish people’s strength in the face of unspeakable horrors. My own city of Coventry is no stranger to resilience when confronted with disaster and destruction. During the second world war, the blitz levelled Coventry’s streets, buildings and many houses of worship. However, in the over 75 years since the war, Coventry has never stopped rebuilding, rebounding and remembering its history. There is no better example of this resilience over the past year than the restoration of a previously abandoned synagogue in the heart of my constituency of Coventry North West. Today, after decades of non-use, I am proud that we now have a place for Judaism to thrive in my city once again—a place for people to gather and learn about Jewish history, culture and faith, and a home for communities to come together and support one another.
This is what defeating fascism and overcoming one of the darkest chapters of our history looks like. We must always treasure these symbols of resilience and defiance. It is just one of the many ways that we can stand together, in this Chamber and across the country, to say never again.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and others on securing this important debate, and I join my colleagues in saying that there is absolutely no place for the vile antisemitic abuse that he and his family have faced.
I want to thank the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for his really moving account of the horrors he witnessed while serving in Bosnia. I also thank the hon. Members for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and of course my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) for sharing the stories of others, which I think is very important if we are going along with the message of never again. It is a particular honour and privilege to participate in such an important debate, and to follow the moving speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel).
Holocaust Memorial Day is a time for us to remember and reflect on some of the most horrendous and atrocious acts committed by mankind. We reflect on the harsh conditions forced upon those who, under Nazi ideology and eugenics, were deemed secondary beings or subhuman. We remember the 6 million Jews who were targeted and murdered by a fascist regime that used vile antisemitism to justify and legitimise its cruel treatment of millions of innocents. We must not forget the millions of others who were murdered under this regime—millions of Soviet civilians and prisoners of war, Roma and Sinti people, Polish, Serbian and Slovenian citizens, LGBT people, the disabled and so many more.
It is important for us to reflect on the antisemitic propaganda and lies that were peddled to justify what was one of the biggest atrocities in our modern history, because we are currently seeing a situation where antisemitism, hate speech and hate crimes continue to rise internationally, in particular across Europe. In Europe, more than one in four Jewish people has experienced antisemitic harassment at least once, and almost half have expressed that they are worried about being subjected to antisemitic verbal insults or harassment.
Not so long ago, in June 2019, Vivienne Walt pointed out that for each of the previous three years, the UK had reported the highest number of antisemitic incidents ever recorded. In France, with the world’s third biggest Jewish population, records showed a 74% spike in antisemitic acts between 2017 and 2018, and in Germany antisemitic incidents had risen by more than 19% on the previous year. We cannot kid ourselves into believing that antisemitism was just a problem of the early 20th century; it is very much present in today’s society, it is on the rise and it must be stamped out. As a holocaust survivor, Primo Levi, wrote:
“If understanding is impossible, knowing is imperative, because what happened could happen again.”
The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and Holocaust Educational Trust do such great work and make many efforts to ensure that we also use this day to remember the other atrocities that occurred in the 20th century—in Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur and so many other places. The importance of remembering those tragedies and recognising the vile ideology that sought to justify them cannot be understated. Failure to remember risks that these tragedies will occur again.
Unfortunately, it seems that we are failing to learn the lessons of those past atrocities; as we sit here today, millions of people across the globe are still subjected to targeted campaigns of persecution, violence and genocide. Uyghur Muslims are being systematically targeted and Rohingya Muslims are persecuted in Myanmar in what has led to the creation of the world’s largest refugee camp. There is the Saudi coalition against Yemen, which has led to widespread famine and was just last year described as the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis. In Ethiopia, we are seeing the warning signs of genocide as Tigrayans are being murdered, raped, tortured and displaced by ongoing conflicts.
Time and again, we have seen what happens when prejudice, bigotry, xenophobia and racism are left unchecked, allowed to fester and—worse—installed in power. We cannot be complacent, given the ever-rising levels of bigotry and all forms of racism that we are seeing closer to home. It is crucial that we should proactively condemn the far-right ideologies that are rearing their heads in the UK and across Europe, peddled by regimes that seek to legitimise the heinous acts that we have seen in the past and are still witnessing today.
When we see far-right extremism being peddled on our own shores and antisemitic and racist hate crimes increasing, we must recognise that for what it is. We must stamp it out immediately. We must address it and always recommit ourselves to saying, “Never again.”
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who has a long track record of standing up to racism and antisemitism. I add my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who both spoke so powerfully about their own family situations.
My constituent John Hajdu MBE brings a teddy bear into local London schools when he speaks as an ambassador for the Holocaust Educational Trust. He will be leading us this Sunday at the Tottenham Hotspur stadium. As an Arsenal supporter, I will have my fingers crossed behind my back when I enter the stadium, but I look forward to a day of contemplation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and others, led by our mayor, the young Councillor Jogee, and the veteran Jewish Councillor Sheila Peacock, who has worked tirelessly on standing up to antisemitism since she was a schoolteacher in the 1980s.
Sheila has now reached her 90th birthday and is still leading the community in Haringey to talk about the issues raised at this time of the year. She has also commemorated the peace garden outside the Bruce Castle Museum, where local rabbis come to bless and conduct prayers. That is always a moving occasion in Haringey, which is home to a community of 180 languages and, in its diversity, probably represents all the different tragic genocidal incidents that Members have mentioned today.
I also put on the record my heartfelt thanks to the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who described his own experience when in the armed forces of seeing people being murdered in a genocide. We are so lucky to have debates such as this—how serious they are and how the emotion gets to us. What a nice antidote to the week we have had. We play our roles in the Opposition and the Government, but it is so important that, as a Parliament, we have these moments that bring us together around the things that matter.
I want to reach out to the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). If he needs any support, as somebody who has personally experienced antisemitism, those of us on the Labour Benches here today would want to offer that support, and to remember the Jewish communities still terrified as a result of the recent Beth Israel attack in Texas and the traumatising effect it had not only on Jewish people in the United States, but across my community. That attack happened in a synagogue and I will link that with what we are being encouraged to do tonight: to light a candle to represent hope.
What do we do when we have these terrible situations, such as the one described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West, who explained why he now has such a small family—so many of them were killed ? What do we do when we hear about attacks on a faith community, such as the casual attack overnight on two of the Haredi community in Stamford Hill? We try to do as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, not shying away from the pain but welcoming it, so that it makes us remember and do things differently.
That reinforces our energy to take on, for example, what the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) talked about: perpetrators who are still living here in the UK and have not been brought to justice. Is there more we could do as a Parliament as a result of today’s debate, not to allow that just to drop in the air it was spoken into, but to pursue it, particularly given that we now see some dangerous trends in the Bosnia and Herzegovina situation, for example? I know my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who will speak next, has long experience of living in Banja Luka and understanding the community there, and has spoken of it in this House. What can we do as a result of today’s debate to prevent another possible genocide from happening in that region?
The legacy we are talking about happens not only in this House, in our debates and our foreign policy, but in our communities. I know all hon. Members here will know people doing similar work. When we were talking with the Minister for Afghan Resettlement, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is leading the Afghanistan welcome programme, I was struck that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West talked about visiting refugees in his locality within weeks of their arrival in the UK. That practical action plays an important role.
A local rabbi in Muswell Hill, David Mason, has joined the Methodist Church, the Quakers and a number of other faith communities to provide a warm welcome for refugees, who are housed in very low-quality accommodation in quite an affluent part of London. We see that inequality, with people who have very little and others who have quite a lot; we walk the same streets, but we have different lives.
Much that is happening at local level is because of the experience that survivors have put into practice. It is the women from the synagogue who prepare meals once a month on a Sunday, bring toys and games for children to play with, have helped children to register at school and assisted refugees to register with a GP, get into college or find a job as a bicycle mechanic—all those basics of the journey one makes in a new community.
I was honoured to go to Auschwitz with a number of schoolchildren, some from Hornsey School for Girls, a number of years ago. I got to see first-hand the dreadful situation there—my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North mentioned it in her speech, so I will not repeat it—but also the importance of experiencing how bleak that place is. At sundown, when the tour is over and we feel the freezing Polish weather and the grey sky, it makes one think of the suffering but also gives one that sense of, “What can we do differently? How do we light the candle? How do we give people hope?”
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—I wanted to speak in the debate but I was in a Bill Committee, which is why I have come in late. I am a trustee of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, and I want to mention all the work it does in remembering people’s lives, including the visits to Auschwitz that she is talking about. It also works to make sure that these things never happen again and to raise awareness about subsequent genocides, including in Rwanda and Cambodia. Will she join me in paying tribute to the staff, to the trustees, to Laura and Olivia and to everyone else at the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust? They do such a fantastic job.
Catherine West
Indeed, I will. My hon. Friend has a long record of promoting the values of the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and has done an enormous amount to emphasise their work not just nationally but locally in the Hampstead area, where so many survivors made their home when they first came here following the second world war and where they have made a strong contribution. Indeed, many Jewish members of our communities are active in organisations such as CARIS—Christian Action and Response in Society—in Haringey, which provides food, clothing, education and legal advice to newly arrived communities. We also have the remarkable Haringey Welcome, which promotes dignity and respect for migrants and refugees in our borough.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you agree with this being a day when we try to reflect on the words we use in Parliament. Some of my Jewish constituents have written to me when we have had debates about immigration in the House and asked that we always try to have those debates in a respectful way. They have asked that, when we talk about groups such as the Gypsy and Traveller community, we try to understand other perspectives and not just use language that may denigrate groups that are already experiencing a lot of discrimination.
Wera Hobhouse
We all need to recognise the feeling of marginalisation and exclusion: it is not one of extinction, but they are also destroying lives. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to recognise that?
Catherine West
Indeed. One of the other local groups in my constituency, the Sir Martin Gilbert Learning Centre, which brings history to life, is another way of not forgetting and of informing a future approach that holds the light—that light that we all want to put in our windows tonight so that we never forget, but also so that we can go forward in a positive way, always trying to prevent violence from happening again and to remember the lesson about how discrimination begins. That reflects the important point that the hon. Member for Bath made about rooting out the beginnings of discrimination and negativity and trying to address them.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for presiding over today’s excellent debate; it is one of the best I have been in since I was elected in 2015. I look forward very much to what the Minister and the shadow spokespersons have to say and also to lighting a candle this evening so that we may never forget.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and all the other speakers in this powerful and moving debate. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity, I am very pleased that we are having this debate, with so much time set aside for it.
I thank Mr Speaker for organising the event in Parliament later this afternoon. It is so important that we as parliamentarians come together to remember, to mourn, to say, “Never again,” and to ask what we can do. I also thank and congratulate the sponsors of the debate—the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols)—on securing the debate and on their speeches.
I am very conscious of the fact that we are in the Chamber speaking for so many others. I am thinking of some of them as we sit and stand here today. I am thinking about my constituent who lives in Roehampton, having fled the genocide in Rwanda. Since then, she has been unable to see the rest of her family or to go back to Rwanda. That is a pain that she takes with her every day. She has rebuilt her life and she now has children, who have never been to Rwanda. She will probably never go there again or see the rest of her family, who are scattered around the world. It is that shockwave of pain that is behind all the stories and all the numbers we are talking about today.
I am thinking about the young woman I met who came from Srebrenica. When I was working near there, she told me that she had lost her brothers and her father one day in July 1995. They left the town and they were never seen again. She was not able to bury them. She was not able to go and mourn them. She felt like they could still be alive—that speck of hope was there and it was absolutely heartbreaking.
I am also thinking of Dr Martin Stern, who yesterday spoke to the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity. He told us the powerful story of how, when he was five, he was taken out of school and sent to camps, and then escaped from them. To his great cost and credit, he tells that story again and again. I pay tribute to all the holocaust survivors who tell their story and have kept the light alive; and to those in later generations, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who continue to tell survivors’ stories.
Catherine West
I cannot allow this moment to pass without mentioning Lord Dubs. We cannot have this debate without mentioning his amazing contribution, first to this House, and then to the other place.
Fleur Anderson
I absolutely echo those thanks to Lord Dubs. I was going to say the same thing. As for all those holocaust survivors listening to the debate who have not been able to tell their story, I am sure other Members will join me in saying: “We understand that. You survived. Not everyone has been able to tell their story.” I thank Lord Dubs—a Member of the other place, and a former Member of Parliament for Battersea, which is near my constituency. He has been inspirational when we have worked together to support refugees.
I would like to underscore why this debate is so important, and highlight ways in which we parliamentarians could do better. We cannot say in this debate that mourning and remembering is doing enough. We say “never again”; there are things that we can do, and we on the all-party parliamentary group have been learning that. First, we must remember and mourn the 8 million Jews who died in camps. Every single one of them is a story that echoes through the generations.
“Never again” has become “time and again”. Dr Martin Stern, the holocaust survivor, said in our meeting yesterday that he wants to remember, but he also wants to make sure that we look at genocides that are happening now, and at potential genocides, and take action on them. Genocide remains an ever-present reality in Rakhine state, in Xinjiang, in Tigray—I could go on. The Early Warning Project reports that today, in 15 countries, there are ongoing mass killings, and Yemen, Pakistan and India are at high risk of having new mass killing incidents break out. In Bosnia, we see a slide into increasing nationalism, anti-secession rhetoric and holocaust denial—denial that Srebrenica took place. These are all harbingers of what can come next. Now is the time when we can stop that.
Another reason why the debate is important is that holocaust denial is shockingly prevalent in the UK, as Members have rightly mentioned. A November 2021 survey led by the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany found that 9% of respondents believed that the holocaust was myth, or that the number of Jews killed in the holocaust had been greatly exaggerated. A third of respondents reported seeing fake news—holocaust denial or distortion—online. Popular social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter were most frequently cited as the locations where that material had been seen.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes the important point that particularly on big social media platforms, online spaces are being created where people can target others with abuse, and where hate speech, religious hate, antisemitism and Islamophobia are normalised. Those are really serious issues that need to be addressed when the House considers the online safety Bill.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for that point. I wholeheartedly agree. If we really mean it when we say “never again”, we should accept that this is where “never again” starts. Hate speech is where it starts, and where it has to be stopped.
Andrew Percy
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. On a point made by my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), we are used to the holocaust denial rhetoric that comes from the far right, but it increasingly also comes from the far left. Does the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) agree that it is important that all of us, when we speak on these matters and fight antisemitism, do so with equal weight and force whether it comes from the far right or the far left, as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North pointed out?
Fleur Anderson
The whole process of othering a group of people because of their identity must be stopped at every opportunity. Online hate speech, wherever it comes from, is linked to rising antisemitism, which Members have mentioned. It is no surprise that between January and June 2021, 1,308 antisemitic events were recorded—the highest number in any recorded year, and an increase of 49% since 2020. I know that we stand together in the House today to oppose this.
I thank, as others have done, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Aegis Trust for their work. I, too, have visited Yad Vashem. I did so as a teenager and will never, ever forget it. That is testament to the power of education.
I worked in Bosnia and Serbia during the war, and four years later I returned to run the Christian Aid Bosnia office, rebuilding villages in north-west Bosnia and supporting the return of refugees. I saw how a country that seems to be peaceful, and communities that seem to be ethnically diverse and happily co-existent, can slip into conflict and genocide. I have seen the necessity of building peace every single day. That is what we are doing in this debate, and that is what this afternoon’s event here in Parliament will be doing: it will be building peace.
I am pleased that Roehampton library has organised a Holocaust Memorial Day event involving local councillors and local people. The librarian staff should be thanked. St Mary’s church in Putney organised prayers for Holocaust Memorial Day. There are 17,000 events taking place across the country, and that is so important to building peace.
Tulip Siddiq
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about all the different communities that are coming together to support Holocaust Memorial Day and to remember all the people who lost their lives. I want to take this opportunity to be a bit cheeky and mention JW3, the Jewish community centre in my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn. It does so much work to build peace and bring together communities. It hosts events for Holocaust Memorial Day, including for other religious communities. It welcomes everyone. It is a model of peace, and I pay tribute to it and to the chief executive, Raymond, who does so much work in bringing together communities.
Fleur Anderson
I thank my hon. Friend for her praise for peacebuilders. Peacebuilding is not easy. It sounds like it is a nice, cuddly thing to do, but it is actually very difficult, especially in areas of conflict. I have seen how hard it is in different areas of Africa in which I have worked. It is hard here, it is hard anywhere, so we must thank, praise and support peacebuilders around the world,
There were clear risk factors in Srebrenica leading up to the day when 8,372 men and boys were taken out in July 1995 and killed. That was one day of horror, but many days led up to that event. Right now in Tigray, thousands have been killed and rape is being used as a systematic weapon of war, and people from Tigray are being taken off the streets of Addis Ababa and detained. It is all based on ethnicity, and it is happening right now. These things are preventable. The holocaust was preventable, and these disasters and crimes against humanity are preventable.
I want to highlight four things that we can do. First, we must fulfil existing obligations in the United Nations genocide convention and the International Criminal Court Act 2001. I remind the House that the UN genocide convention places on the UK these responsibilities: an obligation not to commit genocide; an obligation to prevent genocide, which, according to the International Court of Justice, has an extraterritorial scope, so it is not just about what happens here in the UK; and an obligation to punish genocide. We have been hearing that there are war criminals in the UK who are not being taken to justice—that must end. The UK also has an obligation to enact the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the convention.
That is a profound and wide-ranging set of obligations. Can the UK honestly say that it is living up to them? Have we had a review of our obligations under the convention? Can we look at what we are doing and take action to increase our efforts?
Secondly, we need to approach genocide and crimes against humanity as actionable events, not just consequences of existing conflict and warfare. The action we can take includes establishing the means to identify risk factors and assess threat levels posed by genocide and crimes against humanity. We can monitor at-risk countries, acting swiftly when risk factors are identified, be that through trade, defence, foreign or domestic policies. We can also resource and take seriously our responsibility to investigate, arrest and try or extradite genocide suspects living at large in the UK.
Thirdly—this is what we have been learning about most in the all-party parliamentary group for the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity—there is the need for a national atrocity prevention strategy, a national Government-wide strategy on the prevention of genocide that includes domestic and foreign policy, putting in place institutional infrastructure to prevent genocide happening in the future. America, for example, has the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018. It set up a mass atrocities taskforce, with mandates for an annual report to the President. We do not have an equivalent of that, but we should. Without such a strategy and without political leadership in the face of today’s genocides and campaigns of atrocity crimes, opportunities for the UK to influence, mitigate, prevent and protect will continue to be missed and Britain’s promises of “never again” remain unfulfilled. Fourthly, we need to support holocaust education and wider education about other crimes against humanity and genocides.
Finally, we need to equip the next generation to address the genocides of the future, but we also need to take action now. I have to believe that one day there will be no more genocide, but that means that this day we have to take more action.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The hon. Lady mentioned the ceremony which starts at, I think, just after 4 o’clock. I have warned the Front Benchers that it might be appropriate for us to all be able to go to that, so perhaps just bear that in mind.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), as it always is. I have followed her on two or three occasions now. I particularly enjoy following her for a number of reasons, but first because her contributions are always ones I can adhere to and support. Her contribution today was exactly along those lines.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for permitting me to speak on this subject, which is close to my heart. Today, it has been close to everybody’s heart. The contributions from right hon. and hon. Members, whether in speeches or interventions, have been incredibly important. The world is fast approaching the first 100 years since it all happened—that is how fast time is going. We in this Chamber must never take for granted the freedom to debate, disagree and legislate, so it is an honour to be here today to remember the millions of lives lost at a time when democracy for so many broke down. That is what happened: democracy broke down and evil took over.
The holocaust is the most abominable and systematic act of genocide in history and, for some, it happened in living memory. I want to speak today in remembrance of the 6 million Jews who lost their lives. Every single life has a name, and behind every one of those 6 million names is a story. Others have told those stories today, and we thank them for their personal contributions. The hon. Member for Putney and the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) both mentioned Lord Dubs—I have written down here, “mention Lord Dubs”—who came to this country on a Kindertransport. We owe thanks to him for his contribution. Refugees from the Kindertransport came to a small refugee farm in Millisle in my constituency.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am stimulated to intervene on the hon. Gentleman because this very morning I was listening to BBC radio. A holocaust survivor was taken to Belfast following the war—not, I think, in the period that he describes—and she described the welcome she received and the support she had. Holocaust survivors are becoming fewer. They visit as many schools and educate as many young people as they can. Their testimony can be made available to all schools. I wonder if we should all, as Members of Parliament, ask the schools in our localities to use that testimony as part of their curriculum work to remind people why this must never happen again.
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The person that he referred to who came to Belfast then came to Millisle, which is where the Kindertransport children came who were fortunate enough to get out of Germany. It became home for many of them and that is important. Although Millisle is only on the edge of my constituency, the farm is in my constituency. It played an important role in the Kindertransport operation, giving refuge to Jewish children.
A local businessman, Lawrence Gorman, leased his derelict farmhouse to the Belfast Refugee Aid, which is the point that the right hon. Gentleman made. Ballyrolly House, where the children were, has grown greatly. There is now a housing estate there with private housing, as well as Ballyrolly. This small village in County Down became known as a haven from Nazi terror. Years later, many of those children returned as adults to Millisle to thank the people who helped them, including Lawrence Gorman and the residents and people of Millisle who saved lives.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for his constant dedication in his role as the chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief; he is an example to us all. Will he join me in welcoming plans for the UK-hosted ministerial meeting on freedom of religion or belief in July this year, an international conference that will bring together Government Ministers, faith leaders and civil society representatives from around the world, giving us an important opportunity together to review lessons learned from previous atrocities and to ensure that they do not happen again?
Jim Shannon
I appreciate that intervention and, in return, thank the hon. Lady for all she does as the envoy to the middle east on behalf of Christians and other ethnic minorities. I declare an interest as the chair of the APPG and I am glad that the hon. Lady made that point.
We talk about genocide and today is about the holocaust, but it is also a day, as the hon. Member for Putney said, to remember those who have been subject to persecution, such as Christians across the world and in the middle east, China and North Korea; the Uyghurs in China; the Baha’is in Iran; the Shias in Iran and Iraq; the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia; the Muslims in India; the Hindus in Pakistan; the Yazidis in Iraq; and the Hazaras in Afghanistan. All those are being tortured and murdered because of their beliefs, and that is the issue. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) gently reminded us all of the seminar that is happening this year. It is great to know that the Government will be central in highlighting the genocide that is taking place against many people of different religious groups across the world—it is a salient reminder.
I also want to tell the House about an Austrian refugee, Alfred Neumann, who arranged visas and brought Jewish refugees from Vienna to Newtownards—I suspect that he may be the very guy that brought that young person to Belfast. He came and contributed to life in Newtownards, helped to train people in crafts and to make belts and handbags and create home industries. It has been said that no one in Northern Ireland saved more lives from the holocaust than Alfred Neumann; he was from Cookstown in County Tyrone and he came the whole way to County Down. We are very pleased he did and many people are alive because of it. These efforts, during a period of persecution and loss are worthy of the deepest respect, and I am immensely proud to recognise the contribution of the people of Northern Ireland in providing sanctuary to those who fled such horror.
Some Members in the Chamber may have visited the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. I am afraid I have not, although it has always been my intention to do so. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) referred to education, the importance of which has been illustrated by every speaker today, and I want to talk about what we have done back home. Many younger people in my constituency have recognised the moral responsibility to go to the concentration camps and to experience what took place. My youngest staff member made the pilgrimage at the age of 18 and that part of history has become one of interest and significance to young people.
In our schools in Northern Ireland the curriculum covers the two world wars. It is imperative that remembrance of the holocaust remains a vital element of our curriculum, so I thank my friend and colleague Peter Weir MLA, who as the then Northern Ireland Education Minister allocated funding of £160,000 to support the Holocaust Educational Trust to deliver the Lessons from Auschwitz project to Northern Ireland schools and colleges as part of our education programme. That is what we all want to see, and I am sure that the Minister and the House are united today on how important it is to have that in place. The project ensures that young people learn from that dark chapter of human history, remember it and understand that it must never happen again.
Although the motion relates to Holocaust Memorial Day, I would like to take a minute to highlight the fact, which many hon. Members have referred to, that antisemitism still pervades our society. It is an evil stain on mankind, and for that reason we must continue to support lessons about the holocaust, listen to those remaining few who bore witness, and remember. We must be clear that antisemitism was the foundation on which the genocidal plan was built. The personal narratives of those who survived to bear witness must never be diluted or diminished.
The holocaust remains on the conscience of humanity because in the middle of the 20th century—the most progressive century in human history—humanity experienced its greatest failure. It failed to do what was right; indeed, it did what was wrong, with a vengeance.
Triumph can come from failure, and it must provide hope. I end with a sentence from Magda Herzberger, who was in the concentration camps and prayed to God that she would make it out alive:
“You have to also carry in your heart forgiveness…If you do that, people live in harmony.”
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I congratulate the Members who secured the debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for their powerful and moving contributions.
I thank South Lanarkshire Council’s instrumental music service, which worked with schools across South Lanarkshire, including in my constituency, to create a virtual commemorative event through moving spoken word and musical performances. Education is key; like other hon. Members, I want to mention the Holocaust Educational Trust, whose aim is
“to educate young people from every background about the Holocaust and the important lessons to be learned for today.”
It is incredibly humbling to stand in the Palace of Westminster, a globally recognised symbol of democracy, and speak on Holocaust Memorial Day 2022. It reminds me, as I am sure it reminds us all, of our great privilege to live in such freedom and the great responsibility that comes with it. This year’s theme, “One Day”, is poignant.
To look at one day almost does not seem enough. The atrocities of the holocaust and many other campaigns of persecution spanned years. How can we compact the detail and express the horrors fully based on any one day from the period? That, though, is exactly the point: a snapshot in time, a single day. Each day is as meaningful as another, but perhaps for different reasons. It reminds us that that one day is a day in the life of those who survived and of those who did not; it is not a day consigned only to the history books.
The one day that I would like to tell the House about is one of courage, honour and a lasting promise. The exact date is unknown; it is a memory of a father retold by his son. Enver Alia Sheqer recalls the bravery of his father, Ali Sheqer Pashkaj, who ran a small convenience store in Pukë, Albania. One day, German Nazis stopped by in a van filled with Albanians sentenced to hard labour and a Jewish man due to be shot.
The story goes that Ali, who spoke German, invited the Nazis in and plied them with drink. Once they were adequately distracted, he slipped the Jewish man a note hidden in a melon, instructing him how to escape and where to hide until Ali could retrieve him. When the Nazis realised what had happened, they threatened Ali’s life. They held a gun to his head as they interrogated him, but he did not give up his secret. Eventually, the Nazis moved on. Ali went back for the Jewish man and sheltered him for the rest of the war. That man survived the war, moved to Mexico and became a dentist.
I chose that day because it is a story of besa, the Albanian code of honour. It is often reported that Albania ended the war with a larger Jewish population than it started with. Many Jews found sanctuary in Albania, and even after the German occupation the Albanian people refused to break besa. They would not turn over the Jews to whom they provided shelter; they would continue to hide and protect them.
The word “besa” means, quite literally, “to keep the promise”, and someone who acts according to besa is someone to whom a person can trust their life and the life of their family. It is an ethical code by which I hope all of us would act if—God forbid—we ever found ourselves in a position such as the one those brave Albanian men and women faced then. The concept of besa is something we can still apply today, while horrors and crimes against humanity unfortunately still persist. Only last week, a number of us stood in the Chamber to urge the Government to act in support of the Uyghur people, who are facing the horrors of a genocide from the Chinese state.
We might take for granted the privilege of freedom that I mentioned earlier if we cannot imagine a genocide on British soil. We promised to learn from history—after all, we were on the right side of it, and on the right side of history we must remain. We can maintain the moral high ground only if we are supporting the world in learning those same lessons, and actively protecting the persecuted. There must be a political appetite to do that, and I know that all Members in the Chamber today have that appetite.
When we see international conflicts, and how minorities are terrorised and abused, we are quick to stand up and condemn it, but we must also be quick to prevent it. One day could be any day—yesterday, today, tomorrow— but there is a lesson to be learned, and wisdom to be gained from every single day. This evening I will be lighting a candle in remembrance of the millions of lives lost in the holocaust and the genocides that followed. It is a symbol of hope that there will come a time when there are no more mass atrocities and no more genocides—one day.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a privilege to speak on behalf of the Scottish National party in this important debate which, for good reason, is one of the key dates in the parliamentary calendar. Some of the speeches we have heard have been utterly harrowing, but that is all the more reason for people to listen to them. Colleagues may have heard me mention, more than a few times, how fortunate I feel to represent East Renfrewshire, which is home to the majority of Scotland’s Jewish population. We are a diverse, vibrant community, and we are so very much the better for it.
Last week I joined children from Calderwood Lodge Primary School for an excellent online lesson about the realities of the holocaust. We heard from Hedi Argent, whose very ordinary childhood in Vienna was turned upside down one day, just because she and her family were Jewish. She spoke so powerfully to the children about her own childhood, and about how as things changed, she was ostracised and bullied at school, by the teachers as well as the students, before her family had to flee. One thing she still remembered vividly was the personal impact on her of one friend—just one—who stood with her against the tide of hate, demonstrating, as Hedi says, that the right thing is not always the easiest.
Last night I was fortunate to attend an excellent event organised by East Renfrewshire Council, where we heard from the family of the late Reverend and Eva Zoltan. It must have been very difficult for them but they told, very bravely, a chilling story of their parents’ experience during the holocaust, made all the more chilling because clearly life had moved quite quickly from just day to day, to terrible, unimaginable horror. We need to carry that thought with us, and increasingly so.
Holocausts do not just happen overnight; they creep up on us gradually, with intolerance, hatred, and the othering of minority groups being allowed to happen, little by little, because nobody is brave enough to do what that wee girl Hedi’s friend did, and say “No, that’s not right. We don’t treat people badly just because of their identity or just because they are different to us.”
I have spoken in this debate every year since I was elected, and it grieves me to say that I feel a bit less positive than I have done in previous debates. I am concerned about rising intolerance, hatred, and a populist divisiveness, which is fanned online but absolutely exists in real life too across the world, near and far. Nowhere is immune. We in this place need to be outspoken because, whether we look to the disgraceful treatment of the Uyghur Muslims in China, or much closer to home—I, too, saw that horrific video from Stamford Hill last night—we should be concerned. We need to be really aware that this is not some dim and distant historic issue. We have heard about genocides since, and now should concern us, too. We have to be willing to speak out positively and publicly about antisemitism, hatred and prejudice.
I am fortunate because where I live that happens in the most powerful way. I have seen Henry Wuga and his late wife Ingrid speaking to young people about their experience so that generations of the future can learn from the past. Henry is an amazing man. This morning, he was on Radio Scotland encouraging young people to be aware of fake news and emphasising that we must always remember to learn—wise words, as ever. Just like Ingrid Wuga, Judith Rosenberg is very much missed in my community because of the enormous contribution that they both made to holocaust education and ensuring that the voices of survivors are heard and preserved. Such conversations, hearing directly from people who have experienced the holocaust or more recent genocides, are one of the most powerful ways of ensuring that the lessons that we must heed are heard. I am glad to join those who have already praised the excellent work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust for all they do in that regard.
The Holocaust Educational Trust supports initiatives such as the vision schools programme, where Mearns Castle and Barrhead high schools have achieved awards for their work in Holocaust education. That is important and very welcome. The importance of proactive work that supports communities to come together against antisemitism, Islamophobia, hatred and prejudice has never been more important, and communal organisations such as the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities and the Glasgow Jewish Representative Council are often at the forefront of making that happen.
The Glasgow Jewish Representative Council recently hosted an excellent interfaith event where there was an unplanned but profoundly moving moment: the first ever Muslim student at Scotland’s only Jewish primary school was overjoyed to meet his Jewish headteacher again after many intervening years—they were both overjoyed, actually. That reinforced the importance of standing together to appreciate differences and calling out hate. That was one day, as today’s theme would have it, which will remain in my mind.
Another one day that I will remember for the rest of my life was a very different kind of day: the day when I visited Yad Vashem and saw the reality of the holocaust writ large. I saw the magnitude of this stain on humanity, with the cold-blooded murder of men, women and children—so many of them—because they were Jewish, black gay, disabled, Roma or Sinti. Their photographs are there—so many photographs have been carefully collected in the time since—which is deeply upsetting to see. They bring home to you how, one day, everyday people living everyday lives—they were just people—were ripped away and killed in unimaginable horror and unimaginable numbers. Such photos are also posted on the Auschwitz Memorial Museum Twitter account, where, day and daily, we see photographs of men, women and children—often the kind of lovely photos people have on their mantlepiece of beautiful babies or chubby toddlers—who were all killed.
It is really important to have that personal connection to the people who were murdered and look at their faces and into their eyes. Unfathomable numbers of people were murdered in the holocaust, but we must never forget that each one was an individual person—a loved and missed mum or dad, son or daughter—and not just a number to be tallied up. One of them is the only Scot named as righteous among the nations at Yad Vashem, Jane Haining. I have previously called for a more lasting memorial to her, and I applaud everyone involved in the current work on a heritage trail and a school essay competition in her name.
Jane Haining grew up in Dunscore in the Scottish Borders and later travelled to Budapest to take up the post of matron in a Church of Scotland missionary school where many Jewish students were educated. She resisted calls from the Church to come home when it became clear that the situation was becoming very dangerous. Because she refused to leave her students alone to face their fate, she paid for her compassion and solidarity with her life. She was transported to Auschwitz along with them, and she died.
Jane had said of her students:
“If these children need me in days of sunshine, how much more do they need me in days of darkness?”
That is the thing to take away from the debate. It is easy and unchallenging to speak out in the good times, but we really need to be committed to raising our voice and standing up when things are harder, and we all need to do that every day.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a real honour to be able to contribute to this debate today. It is not only an essential time for remembrance and learning but an important time of reflection on the current shape of our society and the direction the world is taking.
We have heard some incredibly powerful and emotive speeches from hon. Members of all parties. Many others have shared their thoughts, as I did, when we signed the Holocaust Education Trust’s book of commitment this week. I pay tribute to its, and others’, vital work to ensure that the atrocities that took place are never forgotten and that the horrors of the holocaust that we saw in Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, which was liberated 77 years ago to this very day, are never repeated.
It was a true privilege to hear from all those who spoke today. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) for his incredibly powerful speech. To speak from personal experience is never easy, especially in this place, but I know his words will have had a powerful impact far beyond this House. I thank the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for speaking out about the shameful rise in antisemitism in this country and for sharing his own personal experience of antisemitism that no one should be on the receiving end of. My thoughts and solidarity are with him and his family. We have heard many powerful accounts. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) shared Rena’s testimony, which was one of courage beyond her young years. We could all learn from that and renew our efforts to stop more children experiencing the horror that Rena did.
I am especially thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for highlighting that alongside the 6 million Jews that were killed, Roma and Gypsy people, Slavic people, LGBT communities, the disabled and religious and political minorities were also targeted by this fascist regime. I will not forget the words that she shared with us. They were so incredibly powerful and I am so proud to call her my friend. She is absolutely right when she says that memorialisation must lead to action. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) laid out some of the actions that we could be taking, particularly in challenging fake news and online hate on social media. That is key to fighting the abhorrent rise of antisemitism, but also Islamophobia. Genocide, as we have heard so many times today, starts with the othering of people that she spoke of. It is that othering of people that leads to the horrors experienced by the Bosnian Muslim families that the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) so eloquently spoke of.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I want to offer my wholehearted support to my hon. Friend and to say how moving I have found her speech and indeed the other speeches that I have been here for today. I also wholeheartedly support the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust and the work of the local Jewish community in Reading and Woodley. I am afraid that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), I have had to be in a Committee today. I apologise for that, but I would like to offer my support, once again, for this debate and say how moving it has been. I am sure that colleagues across the House feel the same way.
Sarah Owen
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and echo his sentiments. We heard some really impassioned and powerful speeches today, but I know that many other Members across the House would have wished to be here to speak.
I am sure we all join my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) in her commitment to remember the 1.5 million Armenian people killed and to recognise that atrocity and evil act. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) said, these evil acts impact people like Bill for many, many years to come. The impact of the holocaust is felt through generations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West said, so we must protect future generations from this horror.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) is absolutely right that we must be vigilant and act at the first signs of any potential genocide. We must also remember the atrocities that have taken place across the world, including the murder of 100,000 people in Babi Yar, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) spoke about so eloquently. I thank him for sharing the powerful lessons from the Kindertransport children.
As my wonderful friends, the hon. Members for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) and for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said, antisemitism is not an historic problem, but, sadly, a scourge in our modern-day society that we can only beat together. As we have heard in so many speeches, memorials often bring people together. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) spoke from the heart when she talked about the peace garden in her constituency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West said, these memorials exist not just to remember the dead, but as a sign of resilience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) was absolutely right to talk from her considerable experience about the shock waves of pain caused by genocide, particularly the shock waves felt by children, so it was very fitting that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) paid such a lovely tribute to the inspirational Lord Dubs from whom we have much to learn.
I know that the original sponsor of today’s debate could not join us, so let me take this moment to pay tribute also to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and thank her for her years of dedication in fighting the far right—the same extremism and fascism that committed the atrocities some 80 years ago, but just under a different guise.
I echo the pledge that others have made today to fight racism and prejudice wherever they are found. I stand in solidarity with Members on both sides of the House in that commitment, as does the Labour party. Wherever and whenever we see the poison of division and hatred raise its ugly head, we must address it, even when it is uncomfortably close to home, which is why our party’s move to a new independent complaints process has been welcomed by many. It involved extensive engagement with the Jewish Labour movement and the Jewish community, and it is an important step in showing that Labour is, and always will be, the party of equality.
Just as they did then, many decades ago, people, sadly, still need a voice of equality and diversity in the face of tyranny and fascism. Tragically, world leaders are not learning the lessons of the past fast enough. We see that, as we stare at the horror of genocide currently taking place in Xinjiang against the Uyghur Muslims and the more recent genocides that have taken place in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur and against the Yazidi and Rohingya, which we are all remembering here today. It is why the theme of Holocaust Memorial Day 2022—One Day—is so sadly fitting. It brings us together not only to remember the 6 million Jews who were killed, but to look forward to a future when, one day, there will be no more genocides and no more war.
The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust sums it up best when it says:
“We learn more about the past, we empathise with others today, and we take action for a better future.”
I believe that we can have a better future, but it will not come without courage—the courage to stand up to tyranny and oppression wherever we see it, whether that be through diplomacy, through trade measures such as the genocide amendment, or by standing shoulder to shoulder with those who are oppressed simply because of who they are—because that one day, when there is no longer war or genocide, will always be worth striving for.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
I shall try to ensure that my comments are suitably timed so that we can get to the event at 4 o’clock.
In her absence, I would like to begin by conveying my thanks to the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) whose personal bravery and conviction in combating antisemitism continues to inspire us all, and to the many Members who secured this afternoon’s debate, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), and the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). This consensual debate shows the House at its very best, and I am grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members for their powerful contributions.
The experience and testimony of several Members moved me particularly, including those of the hon. Members for Warrington North, for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I say to the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) that I was gripped by every single word of his speech and incredibly moved. To my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark, I say that, one day, we must surely live in a world where his wife and family are not subjected to the type of threats he described in his contribution.To my hon. Friend—and I do say hon. Friend—the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), I say that, whichever side of the House he sits on, we will be united in our efforts to tackle antisemitism.
Eighty years ago, on a January day not unlike this one, senior Government officials of Nazi Germany met at Wannsee on the outskirts of Berlin to discuss the implementation of the final solution to the Jewish question. Almost 60 years later, world leaders came together in Stockholm and declared this one day to be Holocaust Memorial Day. Two decisions—one that saw the destruction of the European Jewish community and a second that ensures they are never forgotten.
Holocaust Memorial Day is a day when we remember the 6 million Jewish men, women and children murdered during the unique evil of the holocaust. It is a day when we remember the Roma, people with disabilities, political prisoners and gay men—all victims of the Nazi regime—and it is a day when we remember those murdered in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur.
We know that, far too often in far too many places, people have failed to support Jewish communities under threat. In Nazi-occupied Europe, not only were synagogues destroyed, but millions of Jewish people had their property stolen by the Nazis and their state-sponsored cohorts. In the aftermath of the holocaust, returning victims were forced to navigate a frequently unclear and difficult legal path to recover their property from Governments and neighbours who had failed to protect them and were often complicit in their persecution.
For my part, I have visited Israel three times. On the last visit, courtesy of James Gurd and Elkie Clark from the Conservative Friends of Israel, I had the opportunity to visit Yad Vashem. I have seen for myself the members of the thriving and vibrant Jewish community going about their daily lives in a safer environment that they can now call home, but with echoes of communities previously extinguished across Europe. In July this year, I will be in Poland for my brother’s wedding, and I will take the opportunity to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau, hear these stories myself and bear witness to the terrible events that took place there.
Today, we also consider the plight of the many survivors who have persevered for years in attempting to recover their family’s property, with little hope that they would succeed. They are men such as Leo Wiener who still face an upward battle to get reparation for homes and properties stolen by the Nazis and their collaborators. While some countries have made some effort to pay contributions, many have not. Leo came to London with his parents before the war from what was then Czechoslovakia. The family ran several businesses across Ostrava that were confiscated by the Nazis. Leo’s grandparents, aunts and uncles were all murdered in Treblinka. After the war, Leo’s father returned to Czechoslovakia to try to retrieve the family’s possessions. The family home was still standing, but had been looted. He tried over many years to get his property returned, first under the communists and later when the Berlin wall fell, but to no avail. Leo took on his father’s quest, but despite years of effort, he was told he was not a close enough relative to his grandparents to claim compensation.
Leo is not the only one. In Poland, despite years of campaigning, there is still no compensation scheme for private property. In November this year, the Czech Government will host a conference to see how countries have lived up to the Terezin declaration—a legally non-binding document outlining several measures towards the restitution of property belonging to the victims of Nazi persecution. I would urge all countries that have yet to pay restitution or that have outstanding cases to ensure that holocaust survivors and their families finally see justice.
Sadly, across the globe there are still malicious people who actively deny the reality of the holocaust and seek to minimise the extent of the atrocities committed against the Jewish people. They try to cast doubt on the use of gas chambers, mass shootings, deliberate starvation and the intended genocide of the whole Jewish people. Of equal and growing concern is holocaust distortion, which is more mainstream, but just as pernicious. It is a subtle and sinister approach that questions numbers and assigns different descriptions to places. Death camps are redesignated as “transit camps”. We have seen lockdown restrictions likened to the Nazi persecution of Jews; we have witnessed anti-vaxxers and others pinning yellow stars to their chests across Europe, and even in some parts of the United States.
However, we do holocaust remembrance a disservice if we remember the dead and forget the present persecution of Jewish people across the world. In December we witnessed a despicable act of antisemitism on the streets of London when a hate-filled group of men targeted a bus in Oxford Street, performing Nazi salutes and spitting at Jewish families celebrating Hannukah, and just over a week ago we saw terrifying events unfold at a synagogue in Texas, where the perpetrator was one of our own citizens. The impact of this attack on the Jewish community must not be understated. It underscores the need for the Government to continue working hand in hand with the Jewish community to ensure that synagogues, Jewish schools and communal buildings are protected. We have already provided £14 million of Government support this financial year. I am proud that my Department and many others in Government are helping the Holocaust Educational Trust to work with universities across the country in challenging the scourge of antisemitism.
Like a number of the previous speakers, I pay tribute to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, to its chief executive, Olivia Marks-Woldman OBE, and to her team, who deliver the annual Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony and thousands of local activities across the country. I also thank the chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, Karen Pollock CBE, who works tirelessly to ensure that the next generation learn about the holocaust through the “Lessons from Auschwitz” programme.
Bob Stewart
I thank my very good friend for allowing me to intervene. May I just mention the extremely good work done by Remembering Srebenica, which we have not mentioned today? It takes children to Srebenica to help them understand what happened in Bosnia. I did not want to miss the opportunity of mentioning Remembering Srebenica, whose activities are often sponsored by the Government. I say thank you to the Government, and thank you to Remembering Srebenica.
Eddie Hughes
I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for that powerful intervention.
Teaching the next generation about the history of the holocaust is paramount when it comes to ensuring that our values of pluralism, democracy and tolerance will never be taken for granted. That is why building the new national holocaust memorial and learning centre next to the Houses of Parliament is so important. The centre will let people view Britain’s story in the 1930s and 1940s in its entirety. It will shine a light on the positive contribution that we made to ridding the world of Nazism, but it will also tell the stories of internment, of professional, well-qualified Jewish women forced into domestic service as the price of security, and the activities of home-grown fascists. We will recognise the 10,000 children saved through the Kindertransport initiative, but also acknowledge that their parents were not welcome, and many of the children never saw their parents again.
Andrew Percy
I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words about the new centre, which is very important to me, as someone who used to teach secondary school pupils about the holocaust. Does he agree that when the centre is up and running, we must find a way to ensure that students all over the United Kingdom can have access to it? When I was teaching, I found that it was often difficult for young people to understand that they had a direct link to these events. It is really important for them to be able to make use of this facility. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must do everything possible to support that at the appropriate time in the future?
Eddie Hughes
My hon. Friend is completely right. It is not just a question of reading about these things in textbooks; it is a question of the opportunity to have the story brought to life, and I strongly believe that the centre will do exactly that.
Wera Hobhouse
In my speech I briefly mentioned my uncle, who got out of Dachau and was then interned on the Isle of Man for the whole of the war and could never really integrate. It is so important for people who come here as refugees to be properly integrated and to become part of our communities.
Eddie Hughes
Again, I completely agree. This handing down and sharing of stories and information, person to person, from one generation to another is vital.
While we will recall 6 million Jewish men, women and children murdered during the holocaust, there will also be many deeds of singular courage and resistance, such as those of our own Frank Foley, who was based in the British Embassy in Berlin and bent the rules to help thousands of Jewish families escape Nazi Germany before the outbreak of the second world war. One of them was the father-in-law of my right hon. Friend the late James Brokenshire, and James considered it a privilege to lead on the Government’s plans for the national holocaust memorial in his time as Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary. Sadly, in the not-too-distant future the holocaust will pass from living memory to history. The new holocaust memorial and learning centre will keep alive the memory of those who were murdered during the holocaust and subsequent genocides.
Despite our failure to learn the lessons of the past, we must not give up hope that one day we can imagine a world free of genocide, a world that fully grasps what happens when hatred, intolerance, prejudice and antisemitism are left unchallenged. That very hope was echoed during last year’s Holocaust Memorial Day debate, when our hon. Friend the late Sir David Amess said:
“I simply do not understand and have never understood antisemitism. The most important lesson from the holocaust is that although we cannot police the world, it is simply not acceptable to stand by and do and say nothing when genocide happens.”—[Official Report, 28 January 2021; Vol. 688, c. 624.]
At 7 pm this evening, there will be a short online ceremony to mark Holocaust Memorial Day. I hope hon. Members across the House will take this opportunity for a period of quiet reflection. At 8 pm, as people light a candle in their window, we will think of the millions of victims whose time on this earth was senselessly and brutally cut short; but I will also be holding out hope for a brighter future and a day when the enduring values of care, compassion and kindness triumph over the dark forces of hate, intolerance and prejudice.
Robert Jenrick
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the debate. I have attended these debates on almost every occasion since I was elected eight years ago, and to me this was the most personal and powerful set of contributions I can remember. The contributions also continue to be prescient, with antisemitism on the rise at home and genocide and violence abroad.
When I attend these debates, I often think of the debate that took place in this House before the second world war, on 21 November 1938, which ultimately led to the Kindertransport. That debate was opened by the then Member for Derby South, Philip Noel-Baker, who said:
“Dr. Goebbels said the other day that he hoped the outside world would soon forget the German Jews. He hopes in vain. His campaign against them will go down in history”,
as one of the greatest stains on humanity.
He added:
“Let there go with it another memory, the memory of what the other nations did to wipe the shame away.”—[Official Report, 21 November 1938; Vol. 341, c. 1440.]
I often wonder whether I would have attended that debate and been one of the 40 Members of Parliament who spoke. I hope I would have done so, and that I would have acted. We are, after all, the legislators of this country, the leaders of our communities, and the responsibility to act today is ours.
I close with a prayer in honour of the 6 million souls who perished in the holocaust:
Oseh shalom bimromav
Hu ya’aseh shalom aleinu
V’al kol Yisrael.
V’imru Amen.
May he who creates peace in the heavens create peace for us, and for all the world.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will never forget the inhumanity or the cruelty of the atrocities, or the unconscionable pain that millions suffered. Not in our name. Nor should we ever forget the bravery of so many people who fought against this evil.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day 2022.
Draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings and maintain distancing as far as possible. This is in line with current guidance from the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. This can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk. Similarly, officials in the Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2022.
It is a great pleasure to appear before you, Mr Hollobone, albeit a few minutes early. If you are happy to proceed and it is orderly to do so, I am also happy with that. The order was laid before the House on 15 December 2021. I start by thanking the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its advice on this matter, which helped to inform the order. That advice, published on 20 November 2020, recommended that three drugs be moved from class C to class B of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The drugs are: gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, which is known as GHB; gamma-butyrolactone, which is known as GBL; and 1,4-butanediol, which is known as 1,4-BD. I will refer to them collectively as GHB and related substances—or GHBRS. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recommended that all three substances be controlled under class B of the 1971 Act because of their potential harm and the evidence of the prevalence of these drugs in the UK.
GHBRS are central nervous system depressants. While they have been used as recreational drugs, they have also been weaponised to commit drug-facilitated sexual assault and other crimes. Although this is a misnomer, they are commonly referred to as date rape drugs. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs provided wide-ranging advice on these substances. Prevalence of use increased steadily from 2005 to 2015 and has plateaued since. Gamma-butyrolactone and 1,4-butanediol are converted to gamma-hydroxybutyric acid on ingestion and are therefore similar in effect.
The ACMD found that there was evidence of an increasing number of deaths associated with GHBRS since it had last considered the harms, including 27 recorded deaths in 2018. It was found that these compounds can cause profound unconsciousness and that there is a high risk of overdose and death to users. Other severe effects include the loss of emotional control, depression, paranoia, anxiety, aggression and persistent cognitive impairment. There is strong evidence of GHBRS being used to facilitate crime, including in high-profile cases. They were used by the serial rapist Reynhard Sinaga and the murderers Stephen Port and Gerald Matovu to incapacitate their victims.
Clearly, it is right that we follow the advice of independent experts and tighten controls on these substances. Moving the drugs to class B will increase the maximum penalty for unlawful possession from two years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both, to five years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both. This will signal to the public that offences involving these substances are treated seriously and are subject to appropriate penalties, acting as a deterrent for their possession and supply. It will ensure that sufficient punitive measures are available to the courts, and will mean that the police place a higher priority on action against offences involving these substances.
The ACMD report recommended not only the control of these three drugs under class B of the 1971 Act, but also that gamma-butyrolactone and 1,4-butanediol be placed in schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. This is the most restrictive schedule, which is applied to substances without recognised therapeutic use in the UK. Currently, GBL and 1,4-BD have a unique status. Although they have no therapeutic use, it is it is lawful to import, export, produce, supply or possess them in circumstances where they are not intended to be used for human ingestion. That exceptional status was intended to enable the legitimate industrial use of these substances. However, the exemption has been exploited to enable illicit supply. The Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) (England, Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2021, which were also laid before the House on 15 December, will therefore abolish the exemption for GBL and 1,4-BD, meaning that industrial users will need to obtain a Home Office-controlled drugs licence for their use.
Although the 2021 regulations are subject to the negative resolution procedure and therefore the rescheduling of GBL and 1,4-BD is not under debate, it is a crucial part of the package. Taken together, the two measures will deter illicit possession and supply and reduce the availability of GHBRS, thereby preventing crime. We all know the destructive effect that illegal drugs have on the lives of not only those who take them, but their families and wider society. That is demonstrably the case for GHBRS, which have been weaponised to enable crime. The advice from the independent experts makes it clear that these substances are harmful, so it follows that they must be subject to stricter controls. I commend the order to the Committee.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for his remarks. The Opposition supports the proposals in this statutory instrument, which will introduce restrictions around the drug GHB and related substances by moving them from class C to class B, following recommendations by the independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The instrument will also bring forward measures on two substances—GBL and 1,4-butanediol—that can be converted to GHB on ingestion, as the Minister suggested, so that those wishing to possess them for legitimate industrial purposes will require a licence. GHB causes profound unconsciousness and has been used to facilitate some appalling crimes, such as those committed by Stephen Port, who used GHB to incapacitate his victims, and Reynhard Sinaga, who was found guilty of 136 counts of rape.
We are committed to working with the Government, the police and other public bodies to tackle drug misuse, strengthen controls on dangerous substances and widen the availability of treatments to prevent overdose deaths and get drug users clean. Clearly, where drugs cause harm, they must be classified and enforcement action must be taken to better protect victims from criminal abuse. In recent years, GHBRS have been used by prolific serial rapists, but rapists are more likely to get away with their crimes than to be prosecuted. The Government should be working much harder to reduce the prevalence of sexual violence and improve the shockingly low charge rate for rape. I have to remind the Minister of the context of the statutory instrument—that rapists are getting away with it—to show that this welcome change is just one part of the solution.
The impact assessment for the statutory instrument states that
“statistical experiments cannot conclusively state whether reclassification causes an increase or decrease in consumption/prevalence of a drug. The evidence base for the effects of reclassification is mixed.”
Can the Minister set out how he expects the reclassification to decrease the prevalence of GHB? We absolutely support the change to reschedule GBL and 1,4-BD from a bespoke status to schedule 1. The impact assessment tells us that the change
“will correspond to a reduction in the supply of these drugs because, in practice, the current legislation allows for unimpeded access to these drugs via the clear web.”
Does the Minister have any plans to tackle the sale of GHBRS on the dark web?
According to the Office for National Statistics, between 2008 and 2017 there were, on average, 19 deaths related to GHB per year. The ACMD tells us:
“There is evidence of increasing mortality associated with GHBRS use”,
and:
“Although the overall number of deaths is relatively low there was a steep rise in deaths between 2008 and 2015…However, mortality figures are likely to be an underestimate due to the challenges in testing for and identifying GHBRS in post-mortem samples”.
That makes it hard to make pronouncements in criminal cases, as does the fact that victims sometimes do not remember that they have been the victim of a crime, or they remember very little about it.
The withdrawal symptoms of GHBRS are severe and can be life-threatening, with high relapse rates. The ACMD says that
“more research is needed to investigate effective clinical management of withdrawal, and effective relapse prevention.”
Survivors of a drug-facilitated sexual assault will experience a complex combination of harms and require support from various different services. There are concerns that the reclassification may make people less likely to ask for help or for an ambulance. I ask the Minister for some assurances about those who purchase GHB to use consensually, many of whom are LGBTQ+. How will their safety be ensured? The ACMD report states that
“there is significant evidence of stigma experienced by LGBT GHBRS users, which is a barrier to service access. The complex harms—both physical, mental and social—experienced by MSM require specialist sexual assault support, and it is reported that users believe that current services do not meet these needs.”
Will the Government introduce any increased harm reduction services or victim support alongside the measures in the statutory instrument?
As the Minister will know, the ACMD made eight recommendations in its report. Some are reflected in the SI, but some really important recommendations are not reflected. Clearly, the control of substances and drugs is extremely important, but people’s safety and the reduction of harm will not be addressed by tighter controls alone. As the report’s recommendations suggest, better data collection and reporting of GHBRS use is vital. We need more routine testing for it in cases of unexplained sudden death, better integration of drug treatment and sexual health services, and better education for frontline staff in the health and social care system who come into contact with GHBRS users, as well as improved treatment interventions and more information and support for those at the highest risk of harms associated with GHBRS. Will the Minister set out the Government’s response to the other recommendations in the ACMD report?
We welcome the statutory instrument. It is absolutely right to update the controls and classification of drugs that are dangerous and that are sometimes used for sickening sexual crimes, but we must also acknowledge that this is a small part of what is needed. So much more needs to be done to reduce the prevalence of these crimes, to increase prosecutions for rape and to tackle the perpetrators of sexual violence. We all know the terrible impact that drugs can have on individuals, families and communities. Increasing enforcement of drug misuse, and stamping out the organised criminals and drug gangs that profit from it, is incredibly important, but it is one part of the solution. The other part must be drug treatment and preventive services, in order to properly break the cycle of drug misuse.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone.
It continues to be the view of the Scottish Government that, 50 years on, the Misuse of Drugs Act is not fit for purpose and all aspects of drug policy should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament—something that even former Prime Minister Gordon Brown apparently now agrees with. The Scottish Government are providing additional funding of £250 million over the next five years to support residential rehab and better near-fatal overdose pathways, and to get better outreach, so that more people are helped into treatment and more people with lived experience are involved in all aspects of decision making.
The Scottish National party continues to lobby the UK Government to adopt a public health approach to drugs, to amend legislation away from criminalisation and, as I have mentioned, to devolve powers to the Scottish Parliament if the UK Government refuse to act. However, the statutory instrument implements the ACMD’s independent recommendations to upgrade the classification of GHB and related substances, which, as the Minister outlined, have some legitimate uses but are often used in extremely serious crimes. In fact, I believe that in the Home Affairs Committee hearing on spiking, the senior police officer witness specifically requested that this be hurried up and done, as has been promised for months. Ultimately, the SNP does not object to the statutory instrument.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I think it is a very good move to reclassify GHBRS, and I want to refer to Deputy Chief Constable Jason Harwin, who gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday calling for this reclassification. The Minister will know that we are conducting an inquiry into spiking. Can he comment on spiking and on how the measure will lead to the putting together of a toolkit for dealing with it, so that it is taken much more seriously by all, including the police? On sentencing, will the reclassification give the police added impetus to investigate and take complaints more seriously? Finally, will there be additional forensic capacity for dealing with a rise in spiking complaints, particularly around the drugs that we are talking about today? That is an ongoing issue, which was raised with the Home Affairs Committee yesterday.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to Members from across the Committee—particularly Opposition Members and the incoming Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North—for their support of the measure. As I hope people have understood, the draft order is part of a suite of tools that we are putting together as a general push against illicit drug use and the use of drugs in crime across the whole United Kingdom. Just before Christmas, we launched our 10-year drugs strategy, whose entire being is about driving down the pernicious effects of illicit drugs in the UK and the concomitant crime. This is a particularly pernicious and unpleasant area of business, on which we have become more focused recently—not least because, as a couple of Members pointed out, there has been a rise in the prevalence of the use of such drugs, and indeed in the number of deaths from it.
To answer the first question asked by the hon. Member for Bradford West, we do believe that the reclassification will reduce the use of the drugs, not least because the greater sentencing indicates a greater sense of priority, which will therefore attract greater police resource. The police prioritise their capacity on offences that we in this House deem to result in the highest harm, and they generally attract the highest amount of attention. For example, most murder squads will have 20 or 30 officers, while most burglary investigations will have one or two. By giving the matter such a level of importance, we think that greater attention will be paid to it. That includes, for example, sales of the compounds on the dark web, where we do enormous amounts of work, mostly thorough our National Crime Agency colleagues, on policing access to illicit equipment—guns, knives, chemicals or whatever it may be. Obviously, the draft order will help with that effort in directing them to where we think the most harm is emanating from.
The hon. Lady raised an interesting question about the use of the drugs consensually. Although there might be people who do that, I hope that everybody would agree that it is profoundly undesirable for their own health that they should use the drugs, whether they consent or not, given the effects that such compounds can have. They are effectively industrial solvents. They are not fit for human consumption. If we can discourage even that kind of use, we should.
Nevertheless, as the hon. Lady said, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we have the right capacity and facilities in place for those who are victims of these kinds of sexually motivated crimes. As I hope she knows, just in the last couple of years we have expanded the number of independent sexual violence advisers and the support mechanisms available for people who are targeted by sexually motivated crime. On the wider response to the ACMD’s report, I would be more than happy to share that with her in due course.
I turn to the overall spiking strategy, although I am anxious not to expand beyond the general remit of the debate. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North identified spiking as a specific issue, and she is right that it is an area of concern. Last autumn, there was a significant rise in the number of reports of individuals who thought that they had been injected with these chemicals, rather than just consuming them in a drink. As she will know, given that she has spoken to Jason Harwin, a national gold group is looking at the evidence to ensure that we have right the capacity, and that we are linking up the right patterns and looking for the right clues about what might be happening with that phenomenon. It is widely the case that the number of convictions for spiking across the country, against the number of reports, has not been satisfactory over the last two or three years. I think that we would all admit that. I hope that the work that Jason is doing, alongside the wider drugs strategy, into which enormous resource is being pumped, particularly on health and rehabilitation, will start to drive down the usage.
The other effect that I ought to outline is that the raising of the classification of the drugs means that the proprietors of premises where they may be deployed, such as nightclubs, will need to be much more on their guard for such compounds as they arrive through the doors, as they are at the moment for cocaine, heroin and other drugs that sadly make their way into the night-time economy. We hope that the raising of the classification, and of the seriousness with which we take the issue, will be reflected in the law enforcement effort more generally across the country, and therefore we will see a reduction in the pernicious use of the chemicals. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Stuart Andrew)
On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. I will not detain the Committee for too long, but I bring it to your attention that the notifications that were sent out said that the start time of the meeting would be 11.30 am, not 11.25 am. Also, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) received notification to be on the Committee, but is not a member of it. I wonder whether there has been some confusion with the hon. Member for Brent Central, who shares the same surname.
The Chair
On the first point, Mr Andrew, the fault is entirely mine. I started five minutes early because, in mitigation, quite a lot of delegated legislation Committees start at 9.25 am or 11.25 am. However, no decision was taken on the order until well past the start time. I admit 100% responsibility for starting five minutes early, but I do not think that the legislation is in danger. The Clerks will have made a note of your second point. If there has been an error in notification, I hope that it can be rectified in future.
Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Thursday 27th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 View all Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 January 2022 - (27 Jan 2022)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. I remind Members to observe social distancing and to wear masks. Members are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming onto the parliamentary estate. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Today, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, before proceeding to line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed on Tuesday by the programming sub-committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 27 January 2022) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 January 2022;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 1 February 2022.
2. the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 109; Schedule 1; Clause 110; Schedule 2; Clause 111; Schedule 3; Clauses 112 to 116; Schedule 4; Clauses 117 to 120; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 1 February 2022.—(Mr Clarke.)
The Chair
I call the Minister to move the motion on written evidence.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Mr Clarke.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Committee members by email.
We now begin line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debate. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment is called first, or the Minister if clause stand part leads the group. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments, clauses or new clauses within the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group, I shall call the Member who opened the debate to wind up.
Clause 1
Meaning of “remediable service”
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) The second condition is that the service in question is—
(a) pensionable service under a Chapter 1 legacy scheme,
(b) pensionable service under a Chapter 1 new scheme that would have been pensionable service under a Chapter 1 legacy scheme but for the person’s failure to meet a condition relating to the person’s attainment of normal pension age, or another specified age, by a specified date, or
(c) excess teacher service.
The second condition is met if all of the service in question falls within paragraphs (a) to (c) (even if it does not all fall within only one of those paragraphs).”.
This amendment updates the second condition in clause 1 so that it catches “excess teacher service” (a definition of which is inserted into clause 98 by a separate amendment) and clarifies that service meets that condition even if it falls within more than one of paragraphs (a) to (c).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 3 and 4.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 34, 36 and 38.
Mr Clarke
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank colleagues on both sides and those in the other place for the constructive way in which we have proceeded with this Bill so far. I thank my officials, who have done an exemplary job on a complex piece of legislation.
At the heart of the Bill is fairness and equal treatment for the public servants on whom we all rely. To ensure we achieve that objective, the Bill is underpinned by the core principles of greater fairness between taxpayers, fairness for lower and higher earners, and the future sustainability and affordability of public sector pensions. I would like to take a moment to explain why the approach to bring forward a number of amendments at this stage has proved necessary—indeed, crucial—to provide a robust and effective remedy.
As I am sure Committee members will agree, this is a highly complex and technical matter. The Bill covers more than 40 schemes. Each, individually, has its own layers of detail and complexity. We are dealing with a somewhat unprecedented issue. Retrospective changes of this scale have not previously been required for occupational pension schemes. However, it is undoubtedly vital that we get it right. Since the Bill was introduced, the Government have continued to work with the individual schemes, stakeholders and Departments to check and recheck the Bill to ensure that it will deliver our commitments to remove the discrimination and offer a complete and effective remedy.
Clause 1 identifies periods of service that are in scope to be remedied under the Bill by placing a number of conditions that must be met. The first condition is that the service took place during the period that the discrimination arose. The second condition is that the service is pensionable under a public service scheme and would have been pensionable under a chapter 1 legacy scheme had the discrimination not occurred.
The third condition is that the person was, on or before 31 March 2012, a member of a legacy scheme or—in the case of certain schemes for firefighters—eligible to be a member of such a scheme. Members who first joined any public service pension scheme after that date were ineligible for transitional protection regardless of their age, and therefore were not subject to the discrimination identified by the court.
The fourth and final condition is that there is no disqualifying gap between the service to which the third condition relates and the period in question. For reference, a disqualifying break in service is defined as a period of more than five years, which reflects the rules of public service pension schemes but allows members who leave to subsequently rejoin when the gap between leaving and rejoining is five years or less.
Amendment 2 concerns an issue that is specific to the teachers’ pension scheme involving teachers with excess service. If a teacher with a full-time teaching contract has an additional part-time contract or contracts, the additional part-time contract constitutes the excess service. Excess service is pensionable in the new teachers’ pension scheme but not in the legacy scheme. However, where the relevant employer has an existing relationship with the local government pension scheme, the regulations of the LGPS provide that the excess service is pensionable in that scheme instead. The teacher will automatically be entitled to enrol into the LGPS in relation to their excess service, therefore providing a home for those accrued rights.
The amendment updates the second condition in chapter 1 to cover excess teacher service, meaning that excess teacher service is a remediable service and, therefore, subject to the provisions in clause 2(1). It will ensure that a member’s excess service can be rolled back to the appropriate scheme. Amendment 4 is consequential on amendment 2, and amendments 34 and 38 define excess teacher service.
Amendment 3 is designed to ensure that the remedy applies correctly to former local government staff who have compulsorily transferred from their employer as a result of outsourcing and were entitled to pensions protection. If such members subsequently became a member of a chapter 1 scheme, the amendment provides that the time they spent in a private sector pension scheme would not count towards the disqualifying gap in service when assessing their eligibility for remedy, which is consistent with the approach provided in respect of transfers and central Government fair deal arrangements.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I am speaking as someone who was a local government employee in Glasgow before I came to this place. Is the Minister saying that, as a consequence of this amendment, if an employee working for the local authority finds that their service is outsourced by a decision of the local authority, that employee would not have pension rights as a result of the service that they would have if they transferred to that outsourced company? Could he clarify that?
Mr Clarke
To reassure the hon. Gentleman, the amendment is designed to prevent that from occurring. In other words, the fact that their employment was outsourced during that period would not constitute a gap of longer than five years, which would put that out of the scope of remedy. It is designed precisely to ensure that they do have protection, rather than that they do not.
Finally, amendment 36 defines a local government contracting-out transfer for the purposes of what I was just alluding to.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I will start by talking about our public sector workforce and the service they give to this country. The pandemic has highlighted how much we depend on the NHS and on teachers, police and other frontline professionals who keep us and our loved ones safe. It is only right that the state ensures that our public servants are secure in retirement by providing a decent pension on a fair and equal basis.
Labour therefore welcomes the main provisions in clause 1, in particular the attempt to introduce a remedy for the discrimination of younger members in the new pension schemes established by the coalition Government between 2014 and 2016. I recognise that the remedy the Government have opted to include in the Bill—the deferred choice underpin, or DCU—was the preferred option of the overwhelming majority of respondents to the Government’s consultation, including Unison and GMB—my trade union. However, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that trade unions continue to have concerns about the lack of clarity on how the remedy, expected to cost around £17 billion, will impact the future value of members’ pension schemes.
On Second Reading on 5 January, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said
“liability…will fall on the Exchequer.”—[Official Report, 5 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 112.]
That is an important commitment, but as Lord Davies of Brixton, a Member of the other place and one of the country’s foremost pension experts, has said, it does not address the question of whether the remedy will be included in the cost control mechanism at a later date. If this cost were to be included in a future cost control mechanism valuation, it would result in members receiving lower benefits and having to make higher contributions to their pension schemes. As the Public Accounts Committee has warned, this would, in effect, be unfairly penalising our public sector workforce for the Government’s economic incompetence by passing on some of the cost of the Treasury’s £17 billion mistake to members.
Can I ask the Minister to confirm, once and for all, whether the estimated £17 billion cost of the remedy will be included in future valuations of the pension schemes under the cost-control mechanism? If it is to be included, can he please set out how that will impact on the future value of members’ benefits and contribution rates? I think he will agree with me that our public servants deserve better than to be left in the dark, so I hope he will clarify this in detail.
Today, the Government have failed to address concerns about how pension scheme members will be protected from unscrupulous advisers. I know that Minsters have been reluctant to include pension scams in the draft Online Safety Bill, despite the spiralling costs of pension fraud and mis-selling. I would like the Minister to set out what steps he is taking to protect members from scammers, who may try to exploit the greater choice that this Bill provides by getting people to transfer out of the pension schemes in a way that is not in their best interest.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. Some of the comments that I will make today will repeat the assurances I asked for on Second Reading. Looking back over the Hansard record, I think I was the only Member who spoke in that debate who did not have their queries addressed in the Minister’s summing up—not that I was keeping track or feeling got at, at all.
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the query from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West; it should concern all of us that such a massive injustice almost slipped through the net. There have been dozens of chances for amendments to be made and for this Bill to be got right. I said on Second Reading that I was concerned that the number of very late amendments that the Government tabled in the Lords was an indication that there were still big gaps. Something as vital as not denying a public service worker their pension rights was missed because, as a result of a dreadful piece of legislation, their job was sold off to the private sector and then brought back in house again. For that potential injustice to have got this far, until the Government spotted it and brought them in, will leave us all at the end of today’s proceedings—and Tuesday’s if we sit then—still wondering what else is left that has not been picked up.
It is quite clear that, with some of the later amendments, the Government did not identify issues for teachers, whose length of service provision and their age sometimes will not fall into line with each other in a way that would be expected. Some of the later amendments suggest that the Government forgot that sometimes the Treasury does not decide things in Northern Ireland, but rather, it is the Northern Ireland Department of Finance that decides. How could such a crucially important piece of legislation have got to that stage without basic facts of the UK constitution having been picked up somewhere within Government?
I hope that when we come to those sections that the Minister will have the good grace to admit that sometimes there have been simple blunders by the Government, that mean we will have to consider these things as amendments rather than them being part of the substantive Bill.
Chris Stephens
Does my hon. Friend agree that we are taking about deferred pay for public sector workers, and therefore we should be treating this Bill with a great deal of care and attention?
Peter Grant
I absolutely agree. I made it clear during my comments on Second Reading that I do not doubt the sincerity of the Minister’s and the Government’s intention to do the right thing. However, I believe it is a fundamental principle that if someone signs up to a pension scheme, they get what they were promised, even if it becomes inconvenient or the Government discover afterwards that it is going to cost more than they expected. That is why it is important we get clarity on who is going to pick up the tab for the £17 billion, for example. It concerns me that a group of workers who were very badly treated by legislation in the past would have lost even more than they thought they had done if the Bill had not been amended at such a late stage.
I hope that these will be the last substantive amendments that we need to see, but I suspect that on Report the Government will have another raft of big amendments for things that nobody spotted until now.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I also declare an interest: there are members of my family who may be affected by the Bill. I am not entirely sure, but I believe that they may be affected.
I also pay tribute to our public sector workers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn said earlier, and colleagues across the House have mentioned, we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our public sector workers. We are talking about hard-working police officers, firefighters, teachers, local government workers and many others who have been at the forefront of the country’s efforts during the pandemic—and, indeed, over many years—and offer so much to our community. We need to treat the Bill with the utmost gravity, and I am grateful for the tone of the debate overall.
I would like to point out the importance of intergenerational fairness. I appreciate that the Government and the Minister have quite rightly highlighted the importance of the remedy. The Government lost a court case and are now seeking to remedy that significant mistake by the Treasury. However, the risk in the Bill is that inadvertently the Government may impose another unfairness on a younger group of workers. Later on in the course of today’s proceedings, could the Minister reassure those younger workers once again? It is really important for them to have clarity and reassurance about their pensions—that they will not have to pay far greater sums to receive the pensions that they rightly deserve. As part of that reassurance, it is very important that the Government address the issue of the cost control mechanism and are absolutely clear about how it will work. We hope that they will provide further reassurance and information on that matter during the course of today’s discussions.
Finally, I reassure members of the public that these schemes are by and large pay-as-you-go pension schemes, to which teachers, police officers and others make significant contributions during the course of their service. They are not wholly underwritten by the Government. That is a very important point for people who do not work in public services to remember and be reassured by: as another hon. Member mentioned, we are talking about deferred payments to public servants and ensuring that they receive the pensions that they rightly deserve, to which they have contributed over many years of service to our community.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I want to put on the record my interest in the matter before us: I am a member in scope of one of the pension schemes, I am married to a member in scope of one of the others, and a former scheme board member of another of the schemes.
Mr Clarke
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It is important to clarify one of the misapprehensions about what has happened over the course of the passage of this legislation to the issue that we are working to address. The Government did not, as it has been described, make a mistake. We inserted transitional protections into the scheme after the recommendations of Lord Hutton, expressly at the request of the trade union movement. It is important to establish that the request for transitional protections to be inserted was a trade union-led request. That is what triggered the discrimination action against the Government, which we are now working to address. I would defend the Government’s record here quite strongly; this is not something that we have brought about. None the less, we are obviously working in good faith to seek to address it.
Peter Grant
It just will not wash for the Minister to blame the trade unions. If this Government were in the habit of paying a blind bit of attention to anything else the trade unions say, that might be credible. But the trade unions did not make the regulations that were proved to be unlawful; the Government made them. Why can the Minister not accept that the Government took the decision and got it wrong?
Mr Clarke
The Government obviously take responsibility for all of those things, but it is important to establish the full context. We inserted the changes at the request of the trade union movement, and they were found to be discriminatory in a way that could not have realistically been anticipated at the time that the legislation was brought forward. None the less, we are where we are, and I want to address some of the substantive concerns raised in particular about the cost of remedy. We will come back to this later as well in the course of the Committee, because it will arise again in the context of some of the other clauses.
It is really worth clarifying definitively that the Exchequer is responsible for paying out pensions due from unfunded public service pension schemes, to which this relates. This works in practice by current employer and member contribution incomes being used to meet the costs of paying current pensioners. Where contribution income does not match the cost of pensions in payments in any given year, the Treasury has to make the balancing payment. In this way, the Exchequer guarantees the benefit that members worked so hard to earn, as the hon. Member for Glenrothes rightly said, during their time in service.
Remedy increases the pension rights of eligible members over the period in question—2015 to 2022. As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn said, the estimated cost of this remedy for unfunded schemes is in the region of £17 billion, in terms of long-term liabilities for the Exchequer. The Exchequer will therefore pay out these increased pension benefits due to members over several decades as members retire. There should be no doubt that the ultimately liability sits with the Exchequer, rather than scheme members. It is worth noting that, overall, these reforms are estimated to save the Exchequer some £400 billion in long-term liabilities, which is important for the long-term sustainability of our public service pension schemes in an age of rising life expectancy.
On the question of remedy, which is really important in the cost control mechanism, I should be clear that member benefit levels and contribution rates are set out in individual scheme rules and can be adjusted through the cost control mechanism at scheme valuations. The cost control mechanism—again, I will expand on this later—is designed to both protect the value of schemes to members and to protect the Exchequer from unforeseen costs.
At each scheme valuation, the mechanism assesses the benefits that have accrued and are accruing to members to determine whether future benefit levels of member contribution rates need to be adjusted to manage the cost of the scheme. By increasing the pension rights of eligible members, the remedy we are talking about today increases the value of those schemes to members, which is why it is right that it is reflected in the cost control mechanism for the 2016 valuations.
However, because we are waiving the ceiling breaches while honouring floor breaches of the mechanism, it is vital that we establish now, for the avoidance of any doubt, that no member benefits will be cut and no member contribution rates will increase as a result of the 2016 valuations. Any benefit improvements due will be honoured, but no additional costs will be imposed. I reassure the hon. Lady, on her important question, that the costs of our remedy genuinely sit with the Exchequer, not scheme members.
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s important point regarding people not being caught up by pension fraud. Public service pensions schemes do not allow members to transfer to such arrangements, only to equivalent defined-benefit schemes, so there is a degree of protection against the most egregious fraud, but we are always happy to work with individual schemes and the industry to try to promote best practice and make sure that people do not fall victim to any form of mis-selling.
As I set out, this is a highly complex and technical Bill. The amendments in this group, and some we will come on to discuss, are crucial to ensuring that a robust remedy is in place—in this particular instance, for teachers with excess service and those who have a period of service that was subject to a local government contracting-out transfer. On the point that the hon. Member for Glenrothes raised, it is important to note that many of these amendments result from close discussion with individual schemes and stakeholders right up until this moment, not because we had not anticipated many of these questions but because, in truth, how best to resolve them—there are sometimes multiple ways—has been a matter for close discussion. We are confident that the remedies we are bringing forward and the amendments that fall within the scope of today’s proceedings are the optimal way of making sure that we have a new system that is fair and, crucially, provides the most robust possible remedy to the concerns being raised.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendments made: 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 37, at end insert
“, or
(c) is, as a result of a local government contracting-out transfer, pensionable service under a pension scheme that offers pension arrangements that are broadly comparable with those offered to the person before the transfer.”.
This amendment amends the definition of “disqualifying gap in service” so that it includes a period during which the person was transferred to a private sector employer under local government contracting out arrangements.
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 3, line 3, after “scheme” insert “or excess teacher service”.—(Mr Clarke.)
This amendment is consequential on the amendment of the second condition in this clause made by separate government amendment.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Remediable service treated as pensionable under Chapter 1 legacy schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 2 is a crucial provision that implements the retrospective remedy. It provides that any period of remediable service that was under a new scheme is treated as being, and always having been, service under a legacy scheme instead. That ensures that a person with remediable service is placed, with retrospective effect, in the legacy pension scheme that they would have been eligible to be a member of had they not been moved to a new scheme in or after 2015.
Clause 3 provides that where benefits have been paid they are to be treated as having been paid from the appropriate legacy scheme instead, being the scheme that the person is, and always was, a member of, by virtue of Clause 2. The clause itself does not affect the value or amounts of the benefits already paid. It simply ensures that payments are aligned with the appropriate scheme. Any correction to benefits, as a result of a member choosing to receive legacy benefits instead of the new scheme benefits already paid, is dealt with later in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Meaning of “the relevant Chapter 1 legacy scheme” etc
Mr Clarke
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 4, page 5, line 4, at end insert—
“(3A) In a case in which any of the person’s remediable service in the employment or office in question is excess teacher service, “the relevant Chapter 1 legacy scheme”, in relation to so much of the person’s remediable service as is excess teacher service, means the local government new scheme mentioned in section 98(2).”.
This amendment updates the definition of “the relevant Chapter 1 legacy scheme” for a case in which a teacher has excess teacher service. A definition of “excess teacher service” is inserted into clause 98 by a separate government amendment.
The amendment concerns only the interaction between the Teachers’ Pension Scheme and the Local Government Pension Scheme and covers the complex issue of future pension service. It updates the definition of the relevant Chapter 1 legacy scheme for a case in which a teacher has excess teacher service and specifies that that is the Local Government Pension Scheme—the LGPS. That allows the member’s excess service to be rolled back to the LGPS, where the member would have been eligible to join the LGPS had they not been moved to the reformed scheme. This ensures that the member’s excess service is rolled back to the correct scheme.
Tulip Siddiq
We very much support the clause.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 4 ensures that members are returned to the appropriate legacy scheme, which is the scheme that they would have been entitled to be a member of if they had not been moved to a new scheme on or after 1 April 2015. The apparently complex drafting does nothing more than that. The clause simply reflects that some legacy schemes contain different eligibility provisions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Election for retrospective provision to apply to opted-out service
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 5 requires scheme regulations to make provision to allow a member who opted out in relation to a period between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022 to elect for that service to be reinstated as though they had not opted out, if they satisfy conditions that may be specified in the regulations. This ensures that the member can be put back in the position that they would have been in had they not chosen to opt-out as a result of the discrimination.
Peter Grant
Can I raise with the Minister the concern that I raised on Second Reading but did not get an answer to? I welcome the vast majority of clause 5, because it is right that if a member of a pension scheme took a decision about opting in or out based on circumstances that have now changed beyond their control they should be given the opportunity to reconsider that decision. That is absolutely correct. And there has to be some kind of provision as to the conditions about when that right is put in place; I do not have a problem with that.
However, paragraphs (5)(c) and (6)(a) refer to conditions potentially being applied that would require the applicant to submit certain information before the application could be accepted? The House of Commons Library has suggested that one type of information that could be asked for would be for the individual to demonstrate that the reason that they took action was because of what we now know to have been unlawful discrimination built into the scheme.
My question to the Minister is this: is it reasonable to expect somebody to be able to demonstrate that? What standard of proof will be required? I need to remind the Minister that the Windrush scandal happened because the Government retrospectively decided to demand that citizens produce certain information in order to have their rights of citizens respected and they made completely unreasonable expectations on people to have retained information.
Okay, we are talking now about something five or seven years ago instead of 30, 40, 50 years ago, but the principle is still the same. Is it reasonable to assume that people will have kept documentation to demonstrate that they acted on the basis of information at the time and not for some other reason? Can we have an assurance that any regulations will not put an unreasonable burden of proof on people who may well have acted for the reasons set out in the clause, because the chance of them having kept any evidence to prove it five or 10 years later is pretty slim?
Mr Clarke
I can provide the hon. Gentleman with that reassurance. It is simply the case, under the operation of these provisions, that we want people to be able to make a decision at the point of retirement as to which scheme they wish they had been in for the purposes of this seven-year period. There will not be an onerous standard of proof; it will simply be for them to make that determination. I can reassure him that there is nothing that will be, if you like, in any way a high bar for people to satisfy. It is simply for people to make the decision based on their own circumstances and the advice they get at retirement about which scheme would have been best for them.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Immediate choice to receive new scheme benefits
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 6 provides that scheme regulations must make provision for pensioner members and beneficiaries of deceased members to make an immediate choice: whether to elect to receive new scheme benefits in relation to the member’s remediable service, or to receive the default of legacy scheme benefits instead.
Clause 7 provides that an election under clause 6 must be made within one year of the member—or, if the member is deceased, their personal representatives—being provided with details about the benefits available to them in relation to their remediable service, or such longer time as the scheme manager considers appropriate.
Clause 8 provides power for scheme regulations to make provision about situations where a member or their beneficiary fail to communicate to the scheme whether they wish to receive legacy or new scheme benefits in relation to remediable service.
Clause 9 provides that where a person has remediable service in an employment or office that is pensionable under more than one legacy scheme, an election under clause 6 applies in all of those schemes.
Peter Grant
Again, I have a question that I put on Second Reading that was not truly answered then.
In the background papers for the Bill, the Government suggested that clause 6(7) would apply to a fairly small number of people—I think that was how they described them. These are the people who would have a better deal if they were able to mix and match some provisions from one scheme and some from another, and they are now being told that they can opt for entirely one scheme or the other.
I understand the Government’s position, which is that these are people who have been given a benefit that they would not have had if there had not been unlawful discrimination, so they can have no reasonable objection if it is taken away. I suspect that the people who will lose that benefit will take a different view.
However, my real question was this: how many people are potentially affected? The information I have seen—this is the figure I quoted on Second Reading—is that we could be looking at somewhere up to 245,000 people. That is a small percentage of the total number of pensioners affected by this legislation, but a quarter of a million people cannot be described as a small number. Will the Minister confirm how many people he expects to be affected particularly by the restriction in clause 6(7)?
Mr Clarke
I can commit to write to the hon. Member with our best estimate, although it may be that my officials can provide me with such an estimate. In that case, I will relay it to him in a later answer as we make progress on the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 7 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Deferred choice to receive new scheme benefits
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 10 delivers the Government’s commitment to provide a deferred choice to receive legacy or new scheme benefits in relation to active and deferred members’ remediable service. Having had their remediable service returned to the legacy schemes by virtue of clause 2, once that provision comes into force, clause 10 requires scheme regulations to provide that an election to receive new scheme benefits may subsequently be made in relation to the remediable service of active and deferred members.
Clause 11 provides that scheme regulations must specify a deadline by which an election must be made. That deadline must be no earlier than one year before the day on which the member is reasonably expected to become entitled to a pension in accordance with an election. That is why this is referred to as a deferred choice.
Clause 12 replicates the power in clause 8, but is for active and deferred members, rather than pensioner or deceased members. The power is for scheme regulations to make provision about situations where a member or their beneficiary fails to communicate to the scheme whether they wish to receive legacy or new scheme benefits in relation to the remediable service.
Clause 13 provides that where a person has remediable service in an employment or office that is pensionable under more than one legacy scheme, an election under clause 10 applies in all of those schemes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 11 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Pension benefits and lump sum benefits: pensioner and deceased members
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 14 requires any overpayment or underpayment of pension benefits or lump-sum benefits in relation to a pensioner or a deceased member to be corrected, and sets out how and when that will be done.
Clause 15 applies to pensioner and deceased members to align any member contributions payable in relation to their remediable service with the benefits, legacy or new scheme that are ultimately taken.
Clause 16 provides that any difference between the member contributions paid during the member’s remediable service and those that would have been paid had they always paid legacy scheme member contributions is corrected, on the coming into force of clause 2. Where the member is deceased, their personal representatives will be responsible. Clause 17 provides for member contributions in relation to a deferred or active member’s remediable service to be aligned with the decision under clause 10—that is, the deferred choice—as to which benefits are ultimately paid.
Clause 18 provides a power to allow scheme regulations to make provision to reduce or waive that member’s liability where a member owes overpaid pension or lump-sum benefits to a scheme. It also makes further provision to allow overpaid or underpaid contributions owed by or to a scheme to be reduced to reflect tax relief. That is simply to ensure that the member is returned in the correct position net of tax.
Finally, clause 18 allows amounts in relation to overpaid contributions owed to a member under clause 16 to be reduced or waived by agreement. That is simply to allow members who expect to elect to receive new scheme benefits when they retire to avoid paying legacy scheme contributions in relation to their remediable service during the intervening period.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 15 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Pension credit members
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 20 and 21 stand part.
Government amendments 6 to 12.
Clause 22 stand part.
Government amendment 37.
Mr Clarke
The amendments in this group deal with various specific scenarios which may apply to members with remediable service. Clause 19 provides that scheme regulations may make provision in relation to a member who has divorced or dissolved a civil partnership, and, where a pension sharing order is in place, to enable their pension to be shared with their former spouse or civil partner. Clause 20 provides for scheme regulations to make provision in relation to additional voluntary contributions paid during a member’s remediable service.
Clause 21 ensures that, where a member transfers their pension rights from one public service pension scheme to another, they still receive a deferred choice in respect of any remediable service that was subject to the transfer. Clause 22 provides that scheme regulations may make further provision about special cases. The provision that may be made under this clause, or under clauses 19, 20 or 21, includes provision corresponding to any provision in chapter 1 of the Bill or applying any provision of this chapter to persons specified in the regulations.
Clause 22(2) sets out a number of areas where provision may be needed in scheme regulations. These include matters such as the benefits payable to members who had tapered protection, which is termed “mixed service” here, and to members who had a right to buy out an actuarial reduction in relation to early payment of benefits in respect of their remediable service in a new scheme. The amendments that I am about to explain add four areas to ensure that schemes have the necessary powers to deal with specific cases in relation to children’s pensions, partnership pension accounts, redundancy and teachers’ excess service.
Amendment 6 delivers the commitment in the Government’s consultation and consultation response. It set out that where a member has died and a child pension is already in payment, which would otherwise be impacted by a decision taken by someone outside the child’s household, that pension will be protected. The amendment confers power to enable provisions to be made in scheme regulations about the benefits payable where a member dies in respect of surviving children who do not live in the same household as a surviving adult. Amendments 10 and 11 provide clarification by defining “adult survivor” and “child” respectively.
Amendment 7 extends the power to make provision about special cases in clause 22 to enable provision to be made in scheme regulations about excess teacher service. These amendments will allow the teachers’ pension scheme to process excess service cases using existing provisions of the Bill, such as clauses 14 to 17, to correct contributions and benefits whether the service is pensionable in the local government pension scheme or not. Amendment 37 defines “teacher”.
Amendment 8 concerns partnership pension accounts. The Bill already provides for members of the civil service who opted to have a partnership pension account to be reinstated to the appropriate legacy scheme where they so wish. However, there may be cases where that is not possible—for example where the member has died. The amendment therefore provides schemes with powers to make provision to take a different approach where needed to provide a remedy in such cases.
Finally, amendment 9 further amends clause 22 to permit scheme regulations to make provision for cases in which a person who has remediable service is made redundant. This will ensure that schemes are able to make provision for a member to make their deferred choice to receive new scheme benefits at the time their employment ends. This approach will be needed in cases where the member’s redundancy payment is calculated by reference to the pension scheme in which they have remediable service, which is the case, for example, in the armed forces. Amendment 12 inserts a definition of “made redundant”. I beg to move.
Tulip Siddiq
I understand that clause 22 permits changes to the existing and traditional pension scheme and allows for the deregistering of these schemes for tax purposes so that a lifetime allowance tax charge does not apply on the basis that judges are an exceptional case. In making that exception, is the Minister confident that it will not open the door to legal action from other professionals, such as senior doctors, perhaps, who may argue that they want similar treatment?
Mr Clarke
Yes, I can provide the hon. Lady with that reassurance. There is obviously the question whether what we are putting in place for judges is replicable for other professions, and we are confident it is not. That is due to the unique career path of judges, many of whom leave lengthy careers in the private sector to enter public service at the culmination of their careers, and where there is an expectation that, after having served as a judge, there can be no return to private practice. That is precluded uniquely for judges. Once they have made their decision to go to the bench, they cannot then return to practice. That distinction accounts for their very particular career path and very particular constrained options, which means there is a strong case that judges are a unique group for these purposes and therefore there is not discrimination for other professions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Further powers to make provision about special cases
Amendments made: 6, in clause 22, page 19, line 20, at end insert—
“(da) provision about the benefits payable in respect of a child of a deceased member where—
(i) the member has remediable service in an employment or office, and
(ii) the child is not living in the same household as an adult survivor of the member;”
This amendment confers power to enable provision to be made about the benefits payable, where a member dies, in respect of surviving children who do not live in the same household as a surviving adult.
Government amendment 7, in clause 22, page 19, line 20, at end insert—
“(db) provision about cases in which a person has remediable service in an employment or office any of which is excess teacher service;
(dc) provision about cases in which a person has remediable service in an employment or office and also has service in an employment or office as a teacher which—
(i) takes place in the period beginning with the day after the closing date and ending with 31 March 2022,
(ii) is pensionable service under a Chapter 1 new scheme, and
(iii) is not remediable service;”
This amendment enables provision to be made where a teacher has excess teacher service or has service which takes place in the remedy period, is pensionable under a Chapter 1 new scheme, but would not have been pensionable under a Chapter 1 legacy scheme, or under a local government new scheme, if the unlawful discrimination rectified by the Bill had not taken place.
Government amendment 8, in clause 22, page 19, line 20, at end insert—
“(dd) provision about cases in which a person has a partnership pension account;”
This amendment confers power to enable further provision to be made about cases in which a person has a partnership pension account.
Government amendment 9, in clause 22, page 19, line 20, at end insert—
“(de) provision about cases in which a person is made redundant;”
This amendment confers power to enable further provision to be made about cases in which a person is made redundant.
Government amendment 10, in clause 22, page 20, line 17, at end insert—
““adult survivor”, in relation to a member of a Chapter 1 scheme who has remediable service, means a surviving spouse, civil partner or other adult who is entitled under the scheme to a pension determined (to any extent) by reference to the member’s remediable service;”
This amendment contains a definition required for the amendment of this clause that confers power to enable provision to be made about the benefits payable, where a member dies, in respect of surviving children who do not live in the same household as a surviving adult.
Government amendment 11, in clause 22, page 20, line 19, at end insert—
““child”, in relation to a member of a Chapter 1 scheme, means any individual who—
(a) is entitled to receive benefits under the scheme in their capacity as a child of the member, or
(b) would have been entitled to receive benefits under the scheme in that capacity on the assumption that any election under this Chapter was, or was not, made in respect of the member;”
This amendment contains a definition required for the amendment of this clause that confers power to enable provision to be made about the benefits payable, where a member dies, in respect of surviving children who do not live in the same household as a surviving adult.
Government amendment 12, in clause 22, page 20, line 19, at end insert—
““made redundant”: a reference to a person being “made redundant” includes, in relation to a member of the armed forces, a person becoming entitled to a redundancy payment under—
(a) Part 2 of the Armed Forces (Redundancy, Resettlement and Gratuity Earnings Schemes) (No 2) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/832),
(b) the Armed Forces Redundancy Scheme Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/55), or
(c) the Armed Forces Redundancy Scheme Order 2020 (S.I. 2020/1298);”—(Mr Clarke.)
This amendment ensures that the power to make provision about cases in which a person is made redundant covers any case in which a member of the armed forces becomes entitled to a redundancy payment under the instruments listed.
Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Power to pay compensation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clauses 23 to 25 are concerned with ensuring that schemes have further powers to remedy the discrimination that arose. Clause 23 provides a power for scheme managers to pay compensation in respect of any compensatable losses incurred by members as a result of the discrimination suffered. Clause 24 provides a power for scheme regulations to award a member additional benefits where a member has suffered a tax loss because of the discrimination. Finally, clause 25 provides that scheme regulations for a chapter 1 legacy scheme may make provision to give members with remediable service the facility to enter into new arrangements to pay voluntary contributions, to further address the discrimination.
Peter Grant
I have some similar questions to the one that I asked on clause 10, although the wording here is much more specific. I am looking at clause 25(3), where, again, there is a requirement that if someone wants to pay the additional voluntary contributions that they would have paid earlier but for the change in the scheme regulations, they can do so
“only if the scheme manager is satisfied that it is more likely than not”
that they would have chosen to pay them had they known that the change was coming.
I have a few questions for the Minister. First, how do we ensure consistency of treatment if we have scheme members applying to different scheme managers? Perhaps more importantly, what is the route of redress if someone is unhappy with the decision of the scheme manager? Do the Government plan to legislate in order to set out clearly what the redress is in those circumstances, or do members have to fall back on the grievance and dispute procedures that are built into their terms of employment or the terms of individual schemes? That could mean that we get inconsistency when people in similar circumstances put in similar applications, so that one is approved under the rules of one scheme, and one is not approved under the rules of another. That does not deliver the equality of treatment that the Bill is intended to deliver.
Mr Clarke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. The short answer is that we will use Treasury directions, which involve technical advice to scheme managers, so that we can ensure that the inconsistency to which he alludes is not broken.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 24 and 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Interest and process
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 26 provides that scheme regulations may make provision about interest on sums owed to, and by, schemes and the process by which such sums are paid.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Treasury directions
Mr Clarke
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 27, page 24, line 20, leave out “given by the Treasury”.
This amendment ensures that the consultation requirement in subsection (4) of this clause applies to directions given under the clause by the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland.
Mr Clarke
Clause 27 provides that scheme regulations under clauses 18 to 26 must be exercised in accordance with Treasury directions. Where the Northern Ireland Executive have devolved competence for public service pension schemes, directions for those schemes will be issued by the Department for Finance. That ensures that, where Ministers who are responsible for overall policy on public service pensions consider that a consistent approach is necessary, the relevant Department may give directions to schemes about how these powers are exercised in their scheme regulations, further to my point a moment ago.
Amendments 13 and 14 clarify that the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland must consult the Government Actuary before issuing directions concerning the calculation and payment of interest. The change simply ensures consistency with directions given by the Treasury in respect of Great Britain.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Amendment made: 14, in clause 27, page 24, line 22, leave out “the Treasury has consulted” and insert “consultation with”.—(Mr Clarke.)
This amendment ensures that the consultation requirement in subsection (4) of this clause applies to directions given under the clause by the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland.
Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Scheme rules that prohibit unauthorised payments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
The purpose of the clause is to override any scheme rules that prevent an unauthorised payment being made where such a payment is permitted or required by the Bill. Treasury directions will specify the type of payments permitted or required.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Remediable service statements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
The clause requires schemes to provide members with information about their rights in relation to their remediable service, in the form of a remediable service statement. It is this information that will inform member decisions about whether to elect to receive new scheme benefits or to retain legacy benefits instead, whether to opt for service to be reinstated under clause 5 and whether to opt into remediable arrangements to pay voluntary contributions to a legacy scheme under clause 25. The clause sets out to whom remediable service statements should be provided, what they must include, what they may include and when they must be provided.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Section 61 of the Equality Act 2010 etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
The purpose of the clause is to prevent any inconsistency in interpretation or application between section 61 of the Equality Act 2010 and its equivalent in Northern Ireland and the provisions contained in or made under this Bill. The clause ensures that the Bill, rather than section 61 of the 2010 Act, provides a remedy for persons affected by the discrimination. Section 61 ceases to have effect immediately before clause 2(1) of the Bill comes into force.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Application of Chapter to immediate detriment cases
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
The clause concerns the application of the Bill to so-called immediate detriment cases. The clause ensures that chapter 1 does not automatically apply where an immediate detriment remedy has been obtained. That prevents duplication of compensation, ensures that the Bill does not override any previous court or tribunal orders and provides powers for the scheme regulations to make provision to correct or top up any aspects of the remedy already provided to ensure consistent and fair treatment.
Clause 32 defines where an immediate detriment remedy has been obtained in relation to a person’s remediable service. Persons who meet this definition will have received either a full or a partial remedy for the discrimination identified by a court or a tribunal prior to the Bill and the scheme regulations coming into force in relation to that scheme.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Meaning of “Chapter 1 scheme” etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 34 to 37 stand part.
Government amendments 15 to 17.
Clause 38 stand part.
Government amendments 33 and 35.
Mr Clarke
I begin by briefly explaining the clauses that are being amended. Clause 33 defines terms such as “Chapter 1 scheme”, “Chapter 1 new scheme” and “Chapter 1 legacy scheme”, to ensure a consistent understanding and application by all readers.
Clause 34 defines “new scheme benefits”. Where a member has remediable service and they elect to received new scheme benefits, they are entitled to receive benefits that are the same as those that would have been payable in relation to that service had they been a member of the new scheme. Further, if a member elects to receive new scheme benefits, they will be paid from the legacy scheme.
Clause 35 defines “legacy scheme contributions” and “new scheme contributions”. Those terms are defined in relation to a member’s remediable service, and are relevant to clauses 15 to 17, which are concerned with the correction of overpaid and underpaid contributions.
Clause 36 defines “opted-out service”. An opted-out service is a service that would have been a remediable service under clause 1 but for the fact that the member chose to opt out of it being a pensionable service. The definition of “opted-out service” includes a service that would have been a remediable service but for the fact that the member opted to participate in a partnership pension account instead.
Clause 37 defines “scheme regulations”, and provides that it has the same meaning as set out in the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 and the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.
Clause 38 sets out further definitions for various terms used in chapter 1.
The amendment in this group are principally minor technical changes to move certain definitions to chapter 4 so that they can have effect on the whole of part 1 of the Bill, and can therefore apply to all public service pension schemes. The changes are consequential to the introduction of several amendments relating to the remedy in local government, which I will describe further under chapter 3.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 34 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Interpretation of Chapter
Amendments made: 15, in clause 38, page 30, leave out lines 28 to 33.
This amendment moves a definition from this clause to clause 98 so that it applies for the purposes of the whole Part.
16, in clause 38, page 30, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 31.
This amendment moves some definitions from this clause to clause 98 so that they apply for the purposes of the whole Part.
17, in clause 38, page 31, line 48, leave out “Part” and insert “Chapter”.—(Mr Clarke.)
This amendment confines the scope of the interpretation provision in subsection (2) of clause 38 so that it applies only for the purposes of the Chapter.
Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Meaning of “remediable service”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 19.
Clause stand part.
Mr Clarke
Clause 39 sets out the conditions that members of a judicial scheme must satisfy to be within scope of the remedy and have their pensionable service considered remediable service.
The two minor amendments to clause 39 are simply clarificatory changes to ensure that a service in scope of the remedy is correctly identified. That ensures that all members within the remedy’s scope can be accurately captured.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Amendment made: 19, in clause 39, page 32, line 17, at end insert—
“The second condition is met if all of the service in question falls within paragraphs (a) and (b) (even if it does not all fall within only one of those paragraphs).”—(Mr Clarke.)
This amendment clarifies that service meets the second condition in clause 39 even if it falls within more than one of the paragraphs contained in the condition.
Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Legacy scheme elections
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clauses 40 to 46 relate to the judicial options exercise, where judges will elect whether to receive legacy scheme benefits or 2015 scheme benefits for the relevant service. The clauses set out the conditions for making an election, who may make an election, and the effect of making an election. They also make specific provision for judges who have contributed to a partnership pension account.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 41 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Cases in which 2015 scheme election treated as made
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clauses 47 to 50 deal further with the effects of a judge’s choice of pension scheme, including where pension benefits have already been paid from, or contributions paid to, a different scheme from the one chosen. They also address the entitlement of child pension benefits and provide for a default in certain circumstances where an election is not made.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 48 to 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Pension benefits and lump sums benefits
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clauses 51 to 56 allow for corrections to be made where pension benefits, including lump sums, and contributions have already been paid and as a result a judge owes money to the scheme or is owed money by the scheme. They also make specific provision where certain sums need to be repaid to the judge or the pension scheme, and provide powers to make provision for a judge’s liability to be reduced, waived or recovered by way of reduction in pension benefits.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 52 to 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
Pension credit members
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clauses 57 and 58 provide the Ministry of Justice with the power to make provision in relation to pension credit members in the case of divorce, as well as special cases. These clauses are the judicial scheme equivalents of clauses 19 and 22 in chapter 1 of the Bill.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Power to pay compensation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clauses 59 and 60 address the matter of compensation, enabling a scheme manager to compensate members for losses they may have incurred as a result of the discrimination. They also provide powers to provide that members may now make voluntary contributions to judicial schemes where they would have done so but for the discrimination.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Interest and process
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Government amendments 20 and 21.
Clause 62 stand part.
Mr Clarke
Clauses 61 and 62 allow for judicial schemes to apply interest to amounts owed either to or by members as a result of the remedy. They also address the process for making payments that are owed to the scheme. Amendments 20 and 21 will ensure that the consultation requirement in clause 62(4) applies to directions given under the clause by the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland. This requires the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland to consult the Government Actuary before issuing directions concerning the calculation and payment of interest. The change ensures consistency with directions given by the Treasury in respect of Great Britain.
Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Treasury directions
Amendments made: 20, in clause 62, page 50, line 47, leave out “given by the Treasury”.
This amendment ensures that the consultation requirement in subsection (4) of this clause applies to directions given under the clause by the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 21, in clause 62, page 51, line 1, leave out “the Treasury has consulted” and insert “consultation with”.—(Mr Clarke.)
This amendment ensures that the consultation requirement in subsection (4) of this clause applies to directions given under the clause by the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland.
Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63
Scheme rules that prohibit unauthorised payments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clauses 63 to 66 make similar miscellaneous provision as in clauses 28 to 30 in chapter 1. They also ensure that members with remediable service are able to make an informed decision before making their election and enable appropriate delegation to ensure efficient implementation of the options exercise.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 64 to 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67
Application of Chapter to immediate detriment cases
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clauses 67 and 68 relate to judges who have already had their remedy determined by a court or tribunal or by agreement with the scheme manager. The default position is that these judges are not covered by previous clauses of the Bill. Clauses 67 and 68 therefore provide the power to make provisions mirroring previous clauses in respect of these judges. That is to ensure that they are returned to the position they would have been in had the discrimination not occurred.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Meaning of “the election period”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Clauses 70 to 74 stand part.
Government amendment 22.
Clauses 75 and 76 stand part.
Mr Clarke
Clauses 69 to 73 define the meanings of various terms used in chapter 2 relating to the judicial schemes. Amendment 22 simply moves a definition from clause 75 to clause 98 so that it applies for the purposes of the whole of part 1 of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 70 to 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 75
Interpretation of Chapter
Amendment made: 22, in clause 75, page 55, leave out lines 34 to 39.—(Mr Clarke.)
This amendment moves a definition from this clause to clause 98 so that it applies for the purposes of the whole Part.
Clause 75, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77
Meaning of “remediable service”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Clauses 78 and 79 stand part.
Government new clause 3—Meaning of “remediable service”.
Government new clause 4—Power to pay final salary benefits.
Government new clause 5—Section (Power to pay final salary benefits): transitional provision.
Government new clause 6—Pension credit members.
Government new clause 7—Further powers to make provision about special cases.
Government new clause 8—Power to pay compensation.
Government new clause 9—Indirect compensation.
Government new clause 10—Interest and process.
Government new clause 11—Treasury directions.
Government new clause 12—Interpretation of Chapter.
Mr Clarke
This group of amendments relates to chapter 3, concerning the remedy to the discrimination for local government workers. Let me begin by setting out why there are separate provisions in the Bill relating to local government schemes.
In line with the reform processes applied in other parts of the public sector, local government schemes were reformed by the Government following the review undertaken by the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission. In the local government schemes, however, trade unions, employers and the Government agreed to implement transitional protections for members nearing retirement in a different way. Under that approach, all local government scheme members moved to the new and reformed career average schemes from 1 April 2014 in England and Wales and from 1 April 2015 in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That differed from the approach in other public service pension schemes, where protected members stayed in their legacy schemes.
In their reformed schemes, protected local government workers were given the benefit of underpin protection, providing them the value of their legacy final salary pension if that would have been higher than their reformed scheme pension. Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment, which held that transitional protection unlawfully discriminated against younger workers in the judicial and fire schemes, the Government accepted the wider implications that the judgment had for all schemes, including local government.
Policy consultations were undertaken for local government in 2020. Chapter 3 of the Bill provides the necessary powers to address the discrimination in those schemes, which will be done by extending the statutory underpin to younger members who did not originally have protection. The new clauses in this grouping are designed to ensure that a comprehensive remedy is in place for local government workers. The changes include replacements for clauses 77 and 78, which set out the main principles of the remedy as it will apply in local government.
As many of the new clauses are of a technical nature, I will not explain each in detail, but I hope that the Committee will find it helpful if I explain their themes. I will of course be happy to turn to specific new clauses if members of the Committee have any questions. The first theme is to ensure that, where appropriate, there is a consistent approach with other public service pension schemes. The new clauses will therefore provide equivalent powers to those that already exist in respect of the other public service pensions schemes covered in chapter 1. The new clauses cover technical matters, including compensation, special cases and interest payments. They are necessary to ensure that the complexities arising can be addressed robustly across all workforces.
New clause 3, which is a replacement for the existing clause 77, makes an important change to broaden the scope of eligibility for remedy in local government to align it with all other public service schemes. Under the amended approach, members who were in pensionable service on, before or after 31 March 2012 would be in scope of remedy if they leave local government and return within five years, as well as meeting qualifying criteria. The change ensures that, for example, women are not disadvantaged by their increased likelihood of having breaks in employment, which may be due to childcare.
The second theme is to ensure that the powers reflect the particular circumstances of the local government schemes and the differences in how remedy works there. New clause 4, which is a replacement for the existing clause 78, permits scheme regulations to require that separate periods of pensionable service are aggregated or joined up for underpin protection to apply. That is an important principle in the local government pension scheme, which is locally administered. In England and Wales alone, there are 86 administering authorities. To avoid administrative complexity, established policy is that where scheme members have multiple periods of pensionable service, those are each treated separately unless they are aggregated together. Allowing scheme regulations to require aggregation will ensure that underpin protection can be provided in line with that policy, and that substantial administrative complications in the coming decades are avoided.
New clause 3 also ensures that scheme regulations can reflect another aspect of remedy that is unique to local government schemes. When transitional protections were originally negotiated in the sector, it was agreed that the period of protection should cease when a member reaches their legacy scheme normal pension age, usually 65. In line with the Government’s 2020 consultation proposals, it is proposed that that approach is retained, subject to an overall requirement that underpin protection must cease for all members by 31 March 2022. That is crucial to ensure that, going forward, all LGPS members accrue pension on the same career average basis. The amended clause 77 would ensure that underpin protection reflects this policy intent.
The new clauses also make amendments to ensure that the remedy applies correctly to local government staff who were compulsorily transferred from their employer as a result of outsourcing and were entitled to pension protection. That change is consistent with that made in chapter 1, as we discussed earlier. For those members, the time they spent in a private sector pension scheme will not count towards a “disqualifying gap in service”, which we discussed earlier, when assessing their eligibility for the remedy.
Turning to the final theme, some clarifying changes have been made to ensure that the Bill works as intended. In particular, new clause 5 sets out transitional arrangements making it clear that existing scheme regulations providing for underpin protection are to be treated as being made under the powers in the Bill. That change ensures that it is clear that the same legislative framework applies to the members originally protected and those who have been subject to the discrimination found by the courts. It means that scheme regulations can fully remove the differences between the two groups.
Finally, clause 79 provides important definitions for the terms “local government new scheme” and “local government legacy scheme” as they are used in chapter 3. They are important to the meaning and effective application of the clauses in the chapter, so I recommend that that clause stands part of the Bill. I hope that my explanations regarding the new clauses, which ensure a full and robust remedy for the local government workforce, have been helpful to the Committee.
Tulip Siddiq
I am grateful for the explanation given by the Minister. We support the changes to the local government pension scheme and the other technical amendments, in particular those that aim to broaden the scope of members’ eligibility for the proposed remedy.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I rise to declare an interest. Although I have no financial interest in the local government pension scheme, I am still a sitting councillor until May this year, and I sit on the pensions committee. I apologise if I should have made my declaration sooner.
Matt Rodda
I am grateful to the Minister for expanding on those points. I reiterate the importance of listening to the views of women workers in the public sector. They are obviously a large proportion of workers in the public sector, as he well knows. In particular, with this group of new clauses on the local government pension scheme, it is important for the Government to get that right. I urge him to continue to talk and listen carefully to the relevant unions. I should declare an interest as a member of the GMB, which is one of the relevant unions. I believe there is a great deal of knowledge in the local government profession and in the unions on such matters. Please will the Minister consult widely and listen on the fine detail, to ensure that we get it right for the many workers in local government? It is perhaps worth adding that there are a number of other issues with women’s pensions as a whole and a wider context of ensuring that pensions for women are protected and funded properly.
Mr Clarke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. As a former Minister for Local Government, I absolutely agree with everything he says about the value of local government workers and that women form a disproportionately substantial part of the local government workforce. They make up more than 70% of the scheme’s membership, so it is vital that their voice is listened to, and I commit that it will be.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 77 accordingly disagreed to.
Clause 78 disagreed to.
Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80
Restriction of existing schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clauses 80 to 83 implement the prospective remedy. First, they close the main unfunded legacy pension schemes to future accrual and ensure that all members who continue in service will do so as members of the reformed schemes from 1 April 2022. Secondly, they close all other existing judicial pension schemes and one scheme for the intelligence agencies from the same date. Finally, they ensure that no new arrangements to pay voluntary contributions to a legacy scheme may be entered into after 31 March 2022.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 80 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 81 to 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84
Amendments relating to scheme regulations
Mr Clarke
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 84, page 62, line 20, at end insert—
“(6A) In section 8 of PSPA 2013 (types of scheme), after subsection (4) insert—
(4A) The extent to which a scheme under section 1 is a career average revalued earnings scheme is not affected by provision contained in scheme regulations that is made under section (Power to pay final salary benefits)of PSPJOA 2022 (local government schemes: power to pay final salary benefits).”
This amendment clarifies that the status of local government new schemes as career average revalued earnings schemes is unaffected by provision made under NC4.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 26.
Clause stand part.
Mr Clarke
The clause allows scheme regulations to be made to make consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision in relation to any provision of part 1 of the Bill. It clarifies the procedural requirements that apply to scheme regulations. Subsections (5) and (6) remove an exception to the requirement for Treasury consent in the making of scheme regulations by a responsible authority related to scheme regulations of the Welsh Ministers for fire and rescue workers. The clause also introduces a delegated power for the Treasury to make future amendments to the exceptions set out in section 3(6) of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013.
Amendment 25 is a technical amendment to section 8 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 to ensure it is clear that the remedy for local government schemes provided by the Bill does not affect the local government pension scheme’s status as a career average revalued earnings scheme. Amendment 26 contains an equivalent amendment to the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 regarding the local government pension scheme in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Amendment made: 26, in clause 84, page 63, line 18, at end insert—
“(13A) In section 8 of PSPA(NI) 2014 (types of scheme), after subsection (4) insert—
(4A) The extent to which a scheme under section 1 is a career average revalued earnings scheme is not affected by provision contained in scheme regulations that is made under section (Power to pay final salary benefits)of PSPJOA 2022 (local government schemes: power to pay final salary benefits).”—(Mr Clarke.)
This amendment clarifies that the status of local government new schemes as career average revalued earnings schemes is unaffected by provision made under NC4.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85
Amendments relating to the establishment or restriction of schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 85 contains technical provisions relating to the establishment and closure of schemes made under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 and the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014. The clause ensures that the governance and valuation frameworks for public service pension schemes operate correctly when schemes are closed and new ones established.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86
Amendments relating to employer cost cap
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Government new clause 1—Amendments relating to employer cost cap.
Government new clause 2—Operation of employer cost cap in relation to 2016/17 valuation.
Mr Clarke
The cost control mechanism is designed to ensure a fair balance of risk between public service pension scheme members and taxpayers with respect to the costs of those schemes. Clause 86 would ensure that there are no cuts to member benefits or increases to member contributions as a result of the cost control mechanism at the 2016 valuations. New clauses 1 and 2 are designed to replace and supplement the clause while preserving its existing effect. That goes to the point that I was discussing with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn at the outset of this morning’s proceedings.
The cost control mechanism was introduced following the recommendations of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission in 2011. Although the commission recommended a mechanism to protect the Exchequer from increased costs, the Government went a step further and introduced a mechanism that is symmetrical, so also maintains the value of pensions to members when costs fall. At each scheme valuation, the mechanism assesses scheme costs against a base level. If those costs move beyond a certain amount compared with the base level, member benefits or contribution rates must be adjusted to bring costs back to target. All the main reformed public service pension schemes are subject to the cost control mechanism.
The intention was for the mechanism to be triggered only by unforeseen and unpredictable events. In 2018, the Government Actuary was asked to review the mechanism after the provisional results of the 2016 valuations suggested that the mechanism was too volatile and not operating in line with its objectives. The review commenced in 2020 and his final report was published in June 2021. It contained several recommendations on how to improve the mechanism. Following a full public consultation process, the Government confirmed in October last year that it would take forward three reforms to the mechanism in time for the next scheme valuations. All three reforms are recommendations by the Government Actuary.
New clause 1 sets the legislative framework for the implementation of two of those reforms: the reformed scheme only design and the economic check. A reformed scheme only design means that costs associated with the old legacy schemes are excluded from the mechanism. That will make it more stable and reduce intergenerational unfairness, because comparatively younger members’ benefits or contributions will not change based on the cost of legacy schemes to which they had little, or no, access. That transfers the risk associated with legacy scheme costs to the Exchequer, but ensures consistency between the set of benefits being assessed and the set of benefits potentially being adjusted.
The economic check will ensure consistency between member benefit or contribution changes and changes in the wider economic outlook of the country. There will be a higher bar for benefit reductions or contribution increases if the country’s long-term economic outlook has improved. That will equally apply to benefit increases or contribution reductions if the long-term economic outlook has worsened. The economic check will therefore operate symmetrically for the benefit of both members and taxpayers. It will operate in a transparent way and be linked to an objective and independent measure of expected long-term earnings and GDP growth from the Office for Budget Responsibility. Given that the economic check can only offset or prevent breaches, not cause them, the likelihood of changes to member benefits or contributions will decline.
As some members of the Committee will know, the Government also consulted on a third proposal to widen what is called the cost corridor, which will be implemented through secondary legislation in due course. That, again, is designed to reduce volatility. All three proposals will make the mechanism more stable and allow it to operate more in line with its objectives, giving members greater certainty with respect to their retirement incomes. The changes also reproduce, with technical changes, some subsections of the clause as it stands.
New clause 2 replaces clause 86 as it stands in the Bill. The change will ensure that there will be no cuts to member benefits or increases to member contribution rates as a result of the 2016 valuations. Again, that goes to the important point that we discussed at the outset—members will not lose out. However, any benefit improvements that are due will be implemented.
Tulip Siddiq
We welcome the proposal in new clause 1 for a reformed scheme only design, which means that the cost of the legacy schemes will no longer be included in the cost control mechanism, but will the Minister provide clarity on a number of points? As he has said, it is a very technical Bill, so please bear with me.
On Second Reading, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stated the Government’s intention to introduce secondary legislation in due course to widen the margin of the cost corridor from 2% to 3% of pensionable pay. Labour broadly supports that, and I recognise that it aims to provide greater certainty for members and the taxpayer, but, were the cost corridor to be widened to 3%, any upward breach of the CCM might potentially have a larger impact on members, as I am sure he recognises. Will he be willing to commit to publishing impact assessments of the proposed changes to the cost corridor for each public service scheme, to evaluate how members would be affected? Additionally, will the Minister confirm what mechanisms are to be put in place to monitor potential breaches of the cost corridor in the scheme, to ensure that members are given advance notice of possible changes in the value of their benefits?
We have far more serious concerns about new clause 2, which introduces a symmetrical economic check to the cost control mechanism. We object to such a scheme being introduced at such a late stage. It appears as if Ministers are making last-minute amendments to steamroller controversial elements of the Bill through without proper scrutiny. I want reassurance from the Minister that that is definitely not the case.
Peter Grant
I share a lot of the concerns that have just been expressed so eloquently from the Labour Front Bench. I have a couple of other issues with what is in the new clauses; perhaps the Minister will explain.
I understand why the Government want to build in growth in the economy, but at the same time I agree fully with the concerns expressed by the official Opposition. In new clause 1, in what circumstances does the Minister envisage
“or any sector of the economy”
becoming relevant? In which particular sectors of the economy does he think that growth will be particularly relevant to local government or other public sector pensions?
The provision goes on,
“the growth in the economy…of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom”.
Who takes the decision that the economic performance of one particular part of the United Kingdom is relevant to a particular pension scheme or to all pension schemes? What do we mean by a “part” of the United Kingdom? Is that simply the four constituent nations? Can it be influenced more by the economy in London than the economy in Yorkshire?
As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn mentioned a minute ago, the Bill will be far too vague at this point. It will put far too much power into the hands of, presumably, Ministers. There is no guarantee of any accountability or transparency as to the way this is operated. For that reason, my understanding is that a number of unions, although they support the intention behind new clause 1 in its entirety—I am struggling over whether to oppose the entire new clause, as I want to see a lot of stuff in there in the Bill—have significant concerns about that particular part of the economic check. If I were not opposing the new clause, I would be minded to table a more significant amendment at a later stage in proceedings. Will the Minister explain when he envisages a particular sector of the UK economy to be relevant, and when he expects that to be the economy in a particular part of the United Kingdom?
Finally, the Minister was keen to tell us what the unions had said about the previous transition arrangements. Will he tell us what the unions are saying about the economic check in this part of the Bill? Will he explain why he listened to the unions previously, but does not seem to be listening to them now?
Matt Rodda
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn. She is making an excellent point, and I am glad that she will press for a vote. The issue here relates to the need for transparency and trust, and the Government must reassure worried public servants, who have worked hard and have every right to expect a decent pension and retirement, that there is no sleight of hand here.
One of the three issues the Minister mentioned is to be dealt with in regulations, and the other two are on the face of the Bill. I would like him to reassure the Committee about the nature of those regulations, how they will be dealt with by the House and when they will be brought forward. I also remind him of the views of the independent Public Accounts Committee, which urged the Government to take the matter seriously, saying that the Government should
“quickly resolve the challenges presented by the McCloud judgment and cost control mechanism”
and that that was important to rebuild trust. I hope the Minister will consider the PAC’s thoughtful advice on this matter.
Mr Clarke
I thank all Members for their contributions, which I will take in turn. I hope to provide significant reassurance.
On the point that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn made about the widening of the cost corridor, the Government published a full impact evaluation as part of the consultation response on 4 October 2021, so that detail is available and is modelled.
To the point of the hon. Member for Reading East just now, the cost corridor is being addressed in regulations because the current 2% corridor exists under current powers, so we are simply amending 2% to 3% and do not need to introduce anything new.
As for the 25-year guarantee and the assurances given when the pension reforms were first introduced, the Government do not believe that the reforms breach that guarantee. The elements protected by the guarantee are set out in legislation and the cost control mechanism is not included among them. The Government are making these changes following an independent and thorough review of the mechanism by the Government Actuary’s Department and a full and open consultation process. As the GAD’s report makes clear, it does not seem possible for the mechanism to protect the taxpayer unless it considers the wider economic outlook, and the symmetrical operation of the economic check acts to protect members as well as the taxpayer.
The reforms will fundamentally lead to a more stable mechanism, with both benefit reductions and improvements becoming less likely. That aligns with the spirit of the guarantee which, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn quite rightly said, is all about certainty. There is absolute conviction that that is in everyone’s interest including, most importantly, scheme members.
As for how the situation is assessed and to the point of the hon. Member for Glenrothes about how we manage the long-term GDP expectation, the check will be linked to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s independent and objective measure of expected long-term GDP growth and the long-term earnings assumptions. The check will operate purely mechanically with no scope for interference from individuals or groups from within Government or outside. It will be an independent, objectively assessed measure by the OBR. There is no sense in which any Minister from whatever party is in government at whatever time would have the ability to intervene in that process. I hope that provides reassurance on all those points.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the Minister for that explanation. Is there an impact assessment for each scheme?
Peter Grant
Will the Minister clarify something about the other part of my question? Who will decide whether the appropriate measure to use is the growth in the economy of the entire UK, the growth of the economy of one sector, or the growth in the economy of one nation or region? Is that decision within the remit of the OBR?
Mr Clarke
Clause 87 amends the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 to reflect that the secret intelligence service and security service pension schemes have a closing date of 31 March 2016, rather than 2015, as in the other schemes. It also amends the 2013 Act to provide that the schemes are public service pension schemes, not public body pension schemes, and are therefore subject to the provisions of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 88
Amendments relating to the judiciary
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
The clause concerns the addition of judicial offices to the judicial pension scheme. It allows the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Lord Chancellor, as appropriate, to add a devolved judicial office holder to the new, reformed judicial pension scheme in response to a request from Scottish Ministers or the Department of Justice. It also enables past service to be taken into account when new offices are added to the scheme.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89
Amendments relating to non-scheme benefits
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 13—Amendments relating to pension schemes for members of the Senedd.
Mr Clarke
New clause 13 relates to pension schemes for Members of the Senedd. It removes the requirement for Treasury consent to be obtained before a new scheme can be provided or an existing scheme can be modified. It also removes the requirements of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 concerning scheme valuations and an employer cost cap from the Senedd scheme. The change is made to reflect the fact that pensions for Members of the Senedd is now a devolved matter for Wales.
The purpose of clause 89 is to clarify existing legislation with regards to eligibility rules of non-scheme benefits. It is an important policy objective that a responsible authority may not pay non-scheme benefits to persons who fall outside the description of eligible persons without prior Treasury consent.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
Power of Treasury to make scheme for compensation
Mr Clarke
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 90, page 72, line 16, at end insert—
“, or
(c) a compensatable loss for the purposes of section (Power to pay compensation) (power to pay compensation under Chapter 3).”
This amendment ensures that the Treasury’s power to make a compensation scheme under clause 91 covers compensation payable in respect of local government schemes.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 28 and 29.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 30 to 32.
Clause 91 stand part.
Mr Clarke
Clause 90 allows the Government to make regulations to create a compensation scheme in relation to any compensatable losses incurred by relevant members. Clause 85 provides equivalent powers to the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland. Clause 91 provides powers for the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland to create a compensation scheme to make payments under clauses 23 or 59. The provision is equivalent to that made in clause 84.
The amendments in this group are technical and ensure that the powers to create compensation schemes in clauses 90 and 91 could extend to the local government schemes, if considered necessary or desirable to do so.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
Amendments made: 28, in clause 90, page 72, line 22, at end insert—
‘, or
(c) a member of a local government new scheme within section79(2)(a) who has remediable service that is pensionable service under the scheme.’
This amendment ensures that the Treasury’s power to make a compensation scheme under clause 90 covers compensation payable in respect of local government schemes.
Amendment 29, in clause 90, page 72, line 27, at end insert—
‘(c) in paragraph (c), “local government new scheme” and “remediable service” have the same meaning as in Chapter 3.’—(Mr Clarke.)
This amendment ensures that the Treasury’s power to make a compensation scheme under clause 90 covers compensation payable in respect of local government schemes.
Clause 90, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 92 provides the power for scheme regulations to make provisions in relation to certain fee-paid judges who are not McCloud judges but whom it is accepted should have service in the legacy schemes from April 2015. To return them to the position that they should have been in, the provisions will mirror, where possible, the provision for the retrospective judicial remedy in part 1, chapter 2 of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 93
HMRC information-sharing and other functions relating to compensation etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
The purpose of clause 93 is to provide a new function enabling HMRC, or anyone acting on its behalf, to exchange information with a relevant person for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of any compensation function, or to do anything else that HMRC thinks necessary or expedient for that purpose. It also extends the criminal offence of wrongful disclosure that applies to confidential taxpayer information to any such information that HMRC provides under the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 93 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 94
Section 91 of Pensions Act 1995 and section 356 of Armed Forces Act 2006
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 94 disapplies section 91 of the Pensions Act 1995 and article 89 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to ensure that benefits in relation to a partnership pension may be surrendered where a member makes an election under clauses 5 or 41. It also clarifies that section 356 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 does not apply to anything done under this part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95
Minor amendment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 95 corrects a minor error in a section of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 pertaining to ill-health retirement benefits.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 95 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 96
Power to make consequential provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 96 provides Treasury ministers with the power to make regulations that amend, repeal, revoke or modify other statutes where the need to do so is consequential on provision made by the Bill. Where such regulations affect primary legislation, including devolved legislation, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Any amendments to or repeals or revocations of secondary legislation are subject to the negative procedure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 97
Meaning of “member” etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 97 defines the terms “member”, “active member”, “pensioner member” and deferred member” in part 1 of the Bill.
Clause 98, entitled “Interpretation of Part”, provides definitions for terms used in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 97 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 98
Interpretation of Part
Amendments made: 33, in clause 98, page 77, line 15, at end insert—
“‘connected’ means—
(a) connected within the meaning of PSPA 2013 (see section 4(6) and (7) of that Act), or
(b) connected within the meaning of PSPA(NI) 2014 (see section 4(6) and (7) of that Act);”
This amendment defines “connected” for the purposes of the whole of Part 1 of the Bill.
Amendment 34, in clause 98, page 77, line 48, at end insert—
“‘excess teacher service’ has the meaning given by subsection (2)”
This amendment refers to the definition of “excess teacher service” inserted into subsection (2) of this clause by separate government amendment.
Amendment 35, in clause 98, page 77, line 49, at end insert—
“‘Fair Deal scheme’ means—
(a) a pension scheme that, in accordance with the Fair Deal Statement of Practice, has been certified by the Government Actuary’s Department as offering, to persons who have been subject to a Fair Deal transfer, pension arrangements that are broadly comparable with those offered to them before the transfer, or
(b) a pension scheme in relation to which the obligation to give such a certificate has been waived in accordance with that statement of practice;
‘Fair Deal Statement of Practice’ means the statement of practice entitled “Staff Transfers in the Public Sector” issued by the Cabinet Office in January 2000, as supplemented and modified from time to time;
‘Fair Deal transfer’ means a transfer of a person’s employment from a public sector employer to a private sector employer in accordance with the Fair Deal Statement of Practice;”
This amendment moves some definitions from clause 38 to this clause so that they apply for the purposes of the whole Part.
Amendment 36, in clause 98, page 78, line 7, at end insert—
“‘local government contracting-out transfer‘ means a transfer of a person’s employment that was required to be conducted—
(a) in accordance with directions given, and having regard to guidance issued, for the purposes of section 101(1) of the Local Government Act 2003 (contracting out: staff transfer matters), or
(b) having regard to guidance issued for the purposes of section 52 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 (asp 1) (guidance on contractual matters);”
This amendment defines “local government contracting-out transfer”. This is an expression used in government amendments of clause 1 and NC3.
Amendment 37, in clause 98, page 79, line 14, at end insert—
“‘teacher’ means teacher within the meaning of PSPA 2013 (see paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to that Act) or PSPA(NI) 2014 (see paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to that Act);”
This amendment defines “teacher” for the purposes of Part 1. This is required for other government amendments.
Amendment 38, in clause 98, page 79, line 21, at end insert—
“(2) In this Part ‘excess teacher service’ means a person’s service in an employment or office as a teacher where (disregarding section 2(1))—
(a) the service is pensionable service under a local government new scheme, or
(b) the service—
(i) is pensionable service under a Chapter 1 new scheme for teachers, and
(ii) would have been pensionable service under a local government new scheme but for the person’s failure to meet a condition relating to the person’s attainment of normal pension age, or another specified age, by a specified date.
Service in an employment or office is ‘excess teacher service’ if all of the service falls within paragraphs (a) and (b) (even if it does not all fall within only one of those paragraphs).
(3) In subsection (2)—
‘Chapter 1 new scheme’ has the same meaning as in Chapter 1;
‘local government new scheme’ has the same meaning as in Chapter 3.”—(Mr Clarke.)
This amendment defines “excess teacher service”. This is service as a teacher which is in excess of the maximum that could be accrued under the teachers’ Chapter 1 legacy scheme, but where the service is (or, in certain circumstances would have been) pensionable under a local government new scheme.
Clause 98, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Thursday 27th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 View all Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 January 2022 - (27 Jan 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
It will be helpful if I can preface my remarks on clause 99 onwards by returning briefly to clause 5 in relation to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glenrothes, because I can now provide some further information about opting into the remedy. The purpose of clause 5 is to rectify any discrimination that may have resulted in members opting out of relevant pension schemes. It is very important that schemes are permitted to require information to be provided by members to establish why they opted out of the relevant pension scheme, as there may be reasons other than discrimination why members have opted out. It is appropriate that schemes have the power, so that they can ensure that the remedy applies for appropriately affected members. The power allows schemes to set conditions in scheme regulations, as schemes will be best able to assess what it is reasonable to expect a member to provide. The consequences of opting back into the pension schemes are very significant for members’ pension rights and therefore it is important that schemes can take decisions under clause 5 while in possession of relevant information. To help to ensure consistency, scheme regulations are generally subject to Treasury consent, which will ensure fairness.
Clauses 99 to 103 will allow the Treasury to make regulations that establish new public pension schemes for the members of the Bradford & Bingley staff and NRAM pension schemes. Those schemes currently reside under UK Asset Resolution, the holding company responsible for the Government’s remaining interests in those companies. The provisions also include protections that will ensure that members’ rights to pensions and other benefits are at least as good following their transfer to the new public schemes, and set out requirements to ensure that members are protected in the event of future changes to the scheme rules. These clauses will further allow the Treasury to make regulations transferring the assets and liabilities of the current schemes to a nominee of the Treasury, or a company established by the Treasury, for their disposal.
Establishing the new schemes will accelerate the timeline for UKAR to be wound up, helping to relieve the taxpayer of the cost of UKAR’s ongoing operations, and create a more efficient structure for the Government to meet their liabilities towards the scheme members.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The Government have yet to set out the estimated costs of the provisions for Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock and whether those costs are in addition to the £17 billion budgeted for the McCloud response or are part of the same overall costs. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarity on that matter.
Mr Clarke
To be clear, the measures affecting Bradford & Bingley and NRAM are net cost savings, so this is a net benefit for the Exchequer; it actually reduces costs.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 99 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 100 to 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 104
Transfer of other pensions and benefits
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 40.
Clause stand part.
Clause 105 stand part.
Government amendments 41 and 42.
Clauses 106 to 108 stand part.
Mr Clarke
The amendments in this group will ensure that the Bill reflects the conversion of Bradford & Bingley from a public limited company to a private limited company in October 2021, after the introduction of the Bill. Following the nationalisation in 2008, the Government have gradually been divesting their assets in Bradford & Bingley, and confirmed the return of the company to private ownership on 2 November 2021. Prior to the sale, Bradford & Bingley, which was then registered as a public limited company, was re-registered at Companies House as Bradford & Bingley Limited. These amendments will reflect that change, by changing references to Bradford & Bingley plc in the Bill to Bradford & Bingley Limited.
The amendments will allow the Government to transfer pension liabilities residing under Bradford & Bingley to the Treasury. They will also allow information to be shared between the Treasury, UK Asset Resolution Ltd and Bradford & Bingley for the purpose of facilitating those transfers.
Clauses 104 to 108 will make a number of additional provisions, including those giving the Treasury the power to transfer other relevant pension liabilities related to individuals’ past employment at Bradford & Bingley or Northern Rock to the Treasury; conferring powers on the Treasury to vary the way in which taxes apply to persons in scope of part 2, with the intention that this part of the Bill will be tax neutral; conferring powers on the Treasury to obtain the information needed to establish and administer the new public schemes, and to administer the other relevant pension liabilities; and requiring the Treasury to consult the trustees of the current schemes before making regulations concerning the new public schemes.
Amendment 39 agreed to.
Amendment made: 40, in clause 104, page 83, line 11, leave out first “Plc” and insert “Limited”—(Mr Clarke.)
This is one of a number of amendments reflecting the conversion of Bradford & Bingley from a public company to a private company.
Clause 104, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 106
Information
Amendments made: 41, in clause 106, page 86, line 6, leave out “Plc” and insert “Limited”.
This is one of a number of amendments reflecting the conversion of Bradford & Bingley from a public company to a private company.
Amendment 42, in clause 106, page 86, line 14, leave out “Plc” and insert “Limited”—(Mr Clarke.)
This is one of a number of amendments reflecting the conversion of Bradford & Bingley from a public company to a private company.
Clause 106, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 107 and 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 109
Retirement date for holders of judicial offices etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 48.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Amendment 48 very simply corrects a cross-referencing error in schedule 1. It references the power described in paragraph 44(2) in schedule 1, which confers upon the Lord Chancellor the power to reinstate retired magistrates, rather than referencing sub-paragraph (3), as currently drafted.
Clause 109, together with schedule 1, will increase the judicial mandatory retirement age to 75. Schedule 1 also gives the Lord Chancellor powers, with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, to reinstate retired magistrates below the new mandatory retirement age where there is business need.
Tulip Siddiq
We support the clause, which raises the retirement age of judges to 75, as we recognise the need to deal with the backlog in the judicial system. However, I wanted to make the point to the Minister that measures to deal with the backlog should not distract from efforts to improve the diversity of the judiciary. Shockingly, according to Government data—this will not come as a surprise to the Minister—only 1% of judges were black, and only 4% of senior court appointments came from ethnic minority backgrounds. I want some reassurance from the Minister that the Government will take steps to ensure that this provision does not hinder efforts, in any way, to bringing a more diverse workforce to the bench.
Mr Clarke
I thank the hon. Lady for her point, which was well made. Obviously, judicial diversity is very important. That is something that we place a firm emphasis on as we look to the future of the judiciary. As she rightly says, we must ensure that we can deal with the backlog in our courts, which has accrued due to the pandemic, and also deal with the genuine challenges of ensuring that we have enough people in the medium term.
The measures that we are taking will retain around 2,000 extra magistrates and 400 extra judges annually, when compared with retaining a mandatory retirement age of 70. We therefore believe that that is the right thing to do. We absolutely remain committed—as does the Ministry of Justice, more importantly—to the wider principle that we must do everything within our power to ensure that the bench better reflects modern society.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 109 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Retirement date for holders of judicial offices etc
Amendment made: 48, in schedule 1, page 105, line 35, leave out “(3)” and insert “(2)”—(Mr Clarke.)
This amendment corrects an error in the cross-reference in paragraph 44(6) of Schedule 1.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110
Allowances for judicial office holders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 110 and schedule 2 will provide the Lord Chancellor with the power to pay allowances to judicial officeholders where that power does not currently exist.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 110 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 111
Sitting in retirement offices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 111, by reference to schedule 3, creates new sitting in retirement offices. Schedule 3 lists the existing judicial offices, referred to in the Bill as original offices, in respect of which sitting in retirement offices are to be created.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 111 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 112
Appointment to sitting in retirement offices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 112 creates the appointing power for the new sitting in retirement offices, as well as a secondary power for regulations to be made by the Lord Chancellor, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland or Welsh Ministers, as appropriate, to determine eligibility to apply to these offices.
Clauses 113 and 114 make further provision in connection with sitting in retirement appointments, including matters such as remuneration, retirement age and judicial discipline.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 112 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 113 and 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115
Power to add new offices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 115 creates a new power to add new judicial offices to schedule 3, which in turn will create the sitting in retirement equivalent of that office. This power is given to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, Welsh Ministers or the Lord Chancellor, as appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 115 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 116
Consequential etc provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Mr Clarke
Clause 116 introduces schedule 4, which makes technical changes to existing legislation to give effect to the new sitting in retirement policy. In some circumstances, schedule 4 also repeals existing legislation.
Clause 116 also creates a new regulation, making power exercisable by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, Welsh Ministers or the Lord Chancellor, as is appropriate by context. This power allows additional consequential amendments to be made in connection with part 3 of the Bill, to ensure the new sitting in retirement policies operate as intended.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 116 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 117
Regulations and directions
Mr Clarke
I beg to move Government amendment 43, in clause 117, page 93, line 22, at end insert—
“(ba) scheme regulations for a local government scheme (within the meaning of Chapter 3 of Part 1), or”
This amendment disapplies the subsections (1) to (7) of clause 117 in relation to scheme regulations for a local government scheme.
Mr Clarke
Clause 117 defines the terms “affirmative procedure” and “negative procedure”, in order that regulations made under the Bill follow the appropriate parliamentary process. Amendment 43 is a clarifying amendment to make clear that the provisions described in clause 117 do not apply to regulations under chapter 3 concerning the local government schemes.
Regulations under chapter 3 have been made under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 or the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, rather than under this Bill. The 2013 and 2014 Acts contain the relevant provisions for regulations made under those Acts.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 117, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118
Extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Clarke
The clause sets out that the Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The devolved Administrations are currently considering providing legislative consent motions where the Bill makes provision in respect of areas of devolved competence.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 118 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119
Commencement
Mr Clarke
I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 119, page 94, line 10, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
“(d) Chapter 3, and sections 97 and 98 so far as they apply for the purposes of that Chapter, come into force in relation to a local government scheme within section79(2)(a) or (3)(a) on—
(i) 1 October 2023, or
(ii) such earlier day as the Treasury may by regulations appoint;
(da) Chapter 3, and sections 97 and 98 so far as they apply for the purposes of that Chapter, come into force in relation to a local government scheme within section79(2)(b) or (3)(b) on—
(i) 1 October 2023, or
(ii) such earlier day as the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland may by order appoint;”.
This amendment ensures that Chapter 3 of Part 1 (local government) comes into force, at the latest, on 1 October 2023, and confers power on the Treasury (or, in Northern Ireland, the Department of Finance) to bring the Chapter into force earlier.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 45 and 46.
Clause stand part.
Mr Clarke
The clause provides when and how the provisions of the Bill are to come into force, including powers for certain provisions to be brought into force by commencement regulations. The amendments in the group relate to local government schemes and align the coming into force of the Bill with that provided for in respect of the chapter 1 schemes. The amendments provide that chapter 3 of the Bill, to the extent that it has not come into force already, should come into force on 1 October 2023, unless regulations issued by HM Treasury or the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland provide for an earlier date. This change ensures consistency across the public service pension schemes and allows time for local administrators to make detailed preparations for the implementation of the remedy.
Amendment 44 agreed to.
Amendments made: 45, in clause 119, page 94, line 41, at end insert “, or
(b) Chapter 3, or sections 97 and 98 so far as they apply for the purposes of that Chapter, in relation to a local government scheme within section79(2)(b) or (3)(b).”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 44.
Amendment 46, in clause 119, page 94, line 46, after “(2)(b)” insert “, (2)(da)”.—(Mr Clarke.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 44.
Clause 119, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 120
Short title
Mr Clarke
The purpose and effect of clause 120 is to confirm that the short title of the Bill is the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022. Amendment 47 is a procedural amendment to remove the privilege amendment from the other place.
Amendment 47 agreed to.
Clause 120, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Amendments relating to employer cost cap
“(1) Section 12 of PSPA 2013 (employer cost cap) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (9).
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) must be complied with before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the scheme’s first valuation under section 11 is completed.”
(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) A reference in this section to “the employer cost cap” of a scheme under section 1 is a reference to the rate set by virtue of subsection (1) in relation to the scheme.”
(4) In subsection (3)—
(a) after “cap” insert “of a scheme under section 1”;
(b) after “set” insert “, and the changes in the cost of such a scheme are to be measured,”.
(5) In subsection (4)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “the cap” substitute “the employer cost cap of the scheme”;
(b) in paragraph (b)—
(i) for “subsequent valuations” insert “the second or any subsequent valuation”;
(ii) for “the cap” substitute “the employer cost cap of the scheme”;
(c) in paragraph (c)—
(i) for “the extent to which” substitute “whether and if so to what extent”;
(ii) for “of this section” substitute “mentioned in paragraph (b)”;
(d) after paragraph (c) insert—
“(d) that the data, methodologies and assumptions that are to be used for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) are to relate, to any extent, to—
(i) the growth in the economy, or any sector of the economy, of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom,
(ii) the growth in earnings of any group of persons over any period, or
(iii) the rate of inflation (however measured) over any period.”
(6) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) The power to give directions by virtue of subsection (4)(d) is not affected by any statement made before 27 May 2021 by the Treasury, or any Minister of the Crown, relating to the data, methodologies and assumptions that are, or are not, to be used for the purposes mentioned in subsection (4)(b).”
(7) In subsection (5)(a) for “(and any connected scheme)” substitute “(determined, if and so far as provided for by virtue of subsection (4)(c), taking into account the costs of any connected scheme)”.
(8) In subsection (6), in the opening words—
(a) for “the scheme” substitute “a scheme under section 1”;
(b) for “the margins” substitute “either of the margins specified under subsection (5)(a)”.
(9) After subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) Treasury directions may specify the time at which any increase or decrease of members’ benefits or contributions that is provided for under subsection (6) is to take effect.
(7B) Treasury directions may require that provision contained in scheme regulations under subsection (6) permits steps to be—
(a) agreed by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, or
(b) determined by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection,
only after the scheme actuary has certified that the steps would, if taken, achieve the target cost for the scheme.
(7C) Treasury directions under subsection (7B) may specify—
(a) the costs or changes in costs that are to be taken into account, or
(b) the data, methodologies and assumptions that are to be used,
for the purposes of determining whether any steps would, if taken, achieve the target cost for the scheme.
(7D) In subsection (7B) “the scheme actuary”, in relation to a scheme under section 1, means the actuary who carried out, or is for the time being exercising actuarial functions in relation to, the valuation under section 11 by reference to which it has been determined that the costs of the scheme have gone, or may go, beyond either of the margins specified under subsection (5)(a).”
(10) Section 12 of PSPA(NI) 2014 (employer cost cap) is amended in accordance with subsections (11) to (19).
(11) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) must be complied with before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the scheme’s first valuation under section 11 is completed.”
(12) For subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) A reference in this section to “the employer cost cap” of a scheme under section 1 is a reference to the rate set by virtue of subsection (1) in relation to the scheme.”
(13) In subsection (3)—
(a) after “cap” insert “of a scheme under section 1”;
(b) after “set” insert “, and the changes in the cost of such a scheme are to be measured,”.
(14) In subsection (4)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “the cap” substitute “the employer cost cap of the scheme ”;
(b) in paragraph (b)—
(i) for “subsequent valuations” insert “the second or any subsequent valuation”;
(ii) for “the cap” substitute “the employer cost cap of the scheme”;
(c) in paragraph (c)—
(i) for “the extent to which” substitute “whether and if so to what extent”;
(ii) for “of this section” substitute “mentioned in paragraph (b)”;
(d) after paragraph (c) insert—
“(d) that the data, methodologies and assumptions that are to be used for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) are to relate, to any extent, to—
(i) the growth in the economy, or any sector of the economy, of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom,
(ii) the growth in earnings of any group of persons over any period, or
(iii) the rate of inflation (however measured) over any period.”
(15) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) The power to give directions by virtue of subsection (4)(d) is not affected by any statement made before 27 May 2021 by the Department of Finance, or any other department, relating to the data, methodologies and assumptions that are, or are not, to be used for the purposes mentioned in subsection (4)(b).”
(16) In subsection (5)(a), for “(and any connected scheme)” substitute “(determined, if and so far as provided for by virtue of subsection (4)(c), taking into account the costs of any connected scheme)”.
(17) In subsection (6), in the opening words—
(a) for “the scheme” substitute “a scheme under section 1”;
(b) for “the margins” substitute “either of the margins specified under subsection (5)(a)”.
(18) After subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) Directions given by the Department of Finance may specify the time at which any increase or decrease of members’ benefits or contributions that is provided for under subsection (6) is to take effect.
(7B) Directions given by the Department of Finance may require that provision contained in scheme regulations under subsection (6) permits steps to be—
(a) agreed by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, or
(b) determined by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection,
only after the scheme actuary has certified that the steps would, if taken, achieve the target cost for the scheme.
(7C) Directions under subsection (7B) may specify—
(a) the costs or changes in costs that are to be taken into account, or
(b) the data, methodologies and assumptions that are to be used,
for the purposes of determining whether any steps would, if taken, achieve the target cost for the scheme.
(7D) In subsection (7B) “the scheme actuary”, in relation to a scheme under section 1, means the actuary who carried out, or is for the time being exercising actuarial functions in relation to, the valuation under section 11 by reference to which it has been determined that the costs of the scheme have gone, or may go, beyond either of the margins specified under subsection (5)(a).”
(19) In subsections (3), (4), (5), (8), (9) and (10) omit “and Personnel”.”.—(Mr Clarke.)
This new clause reproduces, with technical changes, the effect of subsections (2), (3), (6) and (7) of clause 86 as it currently stands in the Bill. It also adds provision for the changes to the operation of the cost cap regime that are to be introduced for the 2020 and subsequent valuations - in particular the economic check and the reformed scheme only design.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Operation of employer cost cap in relation to 2016/17 valuation
“(1) The requirement in provision made under section 12(5)(a) of PSPA 2013 that the cost of a section 1 scheme must remain within a margin above the employer cost cap of the scheme does not apply, and is treated as never having applied, in relation to the cost of the scheme that is calculated by reference to the scheme’s 2016/17 valuation.
(2) Accordingly, provision made under section 12(6) of that Act does not apply, and is treated as never having applied, in relation to a case in which the cost of a section 1 scheme that is calculated by reference to the scheme’s 2016/17 valuation goes beyond a margin above the employer cost cap of the scheme.
(3) In subsections (1) and (2) and this subsection—
(a) “section 1 scheme” means a scheme under section 1 of PSPA 2013;
(b) “the employer cost cap”, in relation to a section 1 scheme, has the same meaning as in section 12 of PSPA 2013;
(c) a reference to a section 1 scheme’s “2016/17 valuation” is to the scheme’s valuation under section 11 of PSPA 2013 the effective date of which is a date in 2016 or 2017.
(4) The requirement in provision made under section 12(5)(a) of PSPA(NI) 2014 that the cost of a section 1 scheme must remain within a margin above the employer cost cap of the scheme does not apply, and is treated as never having applied, in relation to the cost of the scheme that is calculated by reference to the scheme’s 2016/17 valuation.
(5) Accordingly, provision made under section 12(6) of that Act does not apply, and is treated as never having applied, in relation to a case in which the cost of a section 1 scheme that is calculated by reference to the scheme’s 2016/17 valuation goes beyond a margin above the employer cost cap of the scheme.
(6) In subsections (4) and (5) and this subsection—
(a) “section 1 scheme” means a scheme under section 1 of PSPA(NI) 2014;
(b) “the employer cost cap”, in relation to a section 1 scheme, has the same meaning as in section 12 of PSPA(NI) 2014;
(c) a reference to a section 1 scheme’s “2016/17 valuation” is to the scheme’s valuation under section 11 of PSPA(NI) 2014 the effective date of which is a date in 2016 or 2017.
(7) The actuarial valuation with an effective date of 31 March 2016 that was signed on 18 December 2018 under regulation 123 of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 (S.R. (N.I.) 2014 No. 188) is of no effect.”— (Mr Clarke.)
This new clause reproduces, with technical changes, the effect of subsections (4), (8) and (9) of clause 86 as it currently stands in the Bill.
Brought up, read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tulip Siddiq
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I intend to press new clause 14, which I tabled on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench, to a vote. It would require the Government to review how losses arising from the pension trap can be compensated and to report on the review within two months of the passage of this legislation. We are concerned that the Bill does not take into account the so-called pension trap, which means that some members may lose benefits due to a higher retirement age brought in under the new pension schemes. This has come about because police and fire service pensions operate differently from other public sector schemes in that they are based on a 30-year service record rather than a specific retirement age.
The Police Superintendents Association, the Police Federation, the Fire Brigades Union and others have raised fears that individual members could lose out in their pension schemes because of the way that the affected years, between 2015 and 2022, are being treated by the legislation. It cannot be right that pension scheme members in the police and fire service, who have given so much service to the country, will see the overall value of their pensions decline even as they continue to work and to pay contributions, so I ask the Minister whether he will commit the Government to entering discussions with the relevant unions and membership bodies to bring forward a fair solution to the pension trap, as it is called. To demonstrate the Government’s commitment to reviewing the issue and finding a fair solution, he should support the new clause.
Mr Clarke
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the new clause, which would require the Chancellor to lay a report before Parliament within two months of the passing of the Act setting out how the Government could compensate scheme members who had reached the required number of years to retire with full benefits under the legacy scheme but who would need to continue to work if they wished to retire with full benefits under the reformed scheme. The intention of the new clause appears to be to require the Chancellor to devise a way to compensate scheme members with remediable service for any reduction of future pension benefits resulting from the prospective McCloud remedy legislated for in clause 8, and the difference in pension ages between the legacy and reformed schemes.
The Government received representations made by police staff associations regarding members of the 1987 and 2015 police pension schemes who reached 30 years of service in the legacy pension scheme before reaching minimum pension age in the reformed scheme. Lord Davies of Brixton proposed amendments regarding that issue during the Bill’s passage through the other place; however, by referring to full benefits in the reformed pension scheme, the new clause appears to go considerably beyond the police staff associations’ representations and proposals, effectively requiring compensation for those below normal pension age, not minimum pension age, in the reformed scheme.
Under the Bill, all members in active service will be moved into the reformed schemes in respect of service from 1 April this year onward—that is what is known as the prospective remedy—to ensure that all active members are treated equally from that date onward. For the avoidance of doubt, no legacy scheme member will be unable to access the full value of their accrued benefits in their legacy scheme once they reach the required age or length of service. The vast majority of scheme members will be able to access their benefits in reformed schemes at this point, with a fair actuarial reduction for taking scheme benefits below their normal pension age.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
There is obviously a serious issue here, on which the Government have had representations. Can the Minister assure the Committee that discussions will continue between trade unions and other associations and the Government to try to fix this problem?
Mr Clarke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he asks his question. We always want to discuss these issues as fully as possible with a view to finding viable options where they exist. As I said, the Home Office has consulted on detailed regulations to implement the prospective McCloud remedy for the police pension scheme, and it will bring forward the outcome of that consultation in due course.
The Government must not take action that inadvertently creates a new form of the very discrimination that this legislation is designed to address. The Government must also safeguard the purpose of the reforms proposed by Lord Hutton and ensure that public service pension schemes are put on a sustainable fiscal footing. As the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission put it,
“Allowing current members to continue to accrue further benefits in the present schemes for many decades would be unfair and inequitable to the new members coming behind them.”
The reformed public service pension schemes remain among the most generous schemes available in the United Kingdom. Based on the Office for National Statistics’ most recent assessment, 6.3 million public sector workers participate in these valuable schemes, while only 0.7 million workers in the private sector have access to defined-benefit schemes that are open to new members.
I am concerned that the new clause ultimately seeks to oblige the Chancellor to devise measures that would contradict these crucial aims of the prospective McCloud remedy. Compensating members with remediable service for the difference in pension age between their legacy and reformed schemes would, effectively, leave a protected class of public service pension scheme members beyond 31 March 2022, which could perpetuate the discrimination identified by the courts, or give rise to new discrimination. It would also severely weaken the efficacy of the prospective remedy for many years to come, at very considerable cost to the taxpayer.
To summarise, I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn for bringing attention to this issue, and reassure her that the Government have been considering the position of these members. However, careful consideration must be given to the need to avoid perpetuating the discrimination identified by the courts, or introducing new discrimination against other pension scheme members, or inadvertently undoing much of the policy aims of this Bill, and this new clause asks the Chancellor to propose a means of doing just that. I therefore, respectfully, ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Minister started off by suggesting his main concern was that the new clause seeks to go further than has been requested by the Police Superintendents Association. If that was the case, then the Minister could have easily tabled an amendment that came closer, in his view, to delivering what the PSA was asking for without going significantly further. He has not done that, so we have to wonder if he had any intention of addressing the issue had the new clause not been tabled.
We are asking the Chancellor to table a report and present it to Parliament. There is nothing in the new clause that would require the Chancellor to commit a single penny of additional spending. It does not tell the Chancellor what his or her conclusions have to be at the end of that. It is perfectly in line with the wording of the new clause for the Chancellor to produce a report to say, “We could remedy the situation by doing a, b, c, x, y and z, but I cannot recommend doing that because that would introduce unfair discrimination that would be contrary to the purpose of the Act.”
The Minister is trying to make it seem as if the new clause is about forcing the Government to incur additional expenditure. My reading of it is that it is deliberately worded to avoid asking for a commitment at this stage, but it seeks to force the Government to recognise that there might still be a massive weakness in the Bill and to force the Chancellor to come forward with a solution that might address that weakness. If the solution proves to be unworkable or to be unfair in other ways, Parliament has the option to reject it.
Surely, it is wrong, at this stage, that a potentially serious unfairness should be left sitting in the Bill just because we are not sure we can find a way of fixing it. That is not a fair response to give, either to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, who moved the new clause, or to those officers who are likely to be affected by it.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I pay tribute to our police and fire service. I appreciate that the Minister shares that sentiment. I want to underline the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn and others that we are just asking the Government to consider this again and to produce a report. That seems to be the very least that could be asked of them at this point.
It is worth remembering that the police and fire service—these valuable services, which are at the frontline of our public service and respond to challenging issues in our communities—have been through the pandemic after 10 years of quite serious austerity cuts in staff numbers. Once again, I ask the Minister to consider this new clause that asks only for a report to be produced, which would allow further discussion to take place.
I have met the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association, both of which have genuine concerns, and I understand that the Fire Brigades Union does, too. We should listen to these public servants. They have genuine concerns. This is an important issue about the future and the status of these services. I ask the Minister to consider the new clause very seriously.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I rise briefly to echo the points made by my friend the hon. Member for Glenrothes. The new clause calls for a review to consider the issues further. In responding, can the Minister say what steps he will be taking to resolve those outstanding issues and through what form the discussions will take place?
Mr Clarke
I thank the hon. Members for their comments and questions. I entirely echo what the hon. Member for Reading East said about the debt we owe to our police and fire services. Collectively, they are perform enormous public service and we are all in their debt.
We have concerns about the wording of the new clause, particularly where it says that a loss “could be compensated,” implying that compensation should be paid. We are concerned that that creates an expectation on Government.
The Home Office, as the responsible Department, is leading a genuine consultation process about the police pensions services. It will bring forward the outcome of that consultation in due course. To address the issue at this point would fall outside my remit and the remit of this Bill.
Tulip Siddiq
First, I want to say that my new clause is supported by the Police Superintendents Association. I checked it with the association before I tabled it.
I listened to what the Minister had to say, but the new clause does not really propose a solution, which is the Government’s job. We were pushing for a review of the issue, which we know is important to the Police Superintendents Association, the Police Federation and the Fire Brigades Union. I am disappointed that the Minister does not seem to recognise what a concern the pension trap is to those organisations. I wish to push the new clause to a vote, Sir Graham.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Clarke
I thank you, Sir Graham, the Clerks and the officials for all their work on the Bill, and colleagues throughout the House and in the other place for their contributions. I repeat what I said at the outset about the debt I owe to my team for the hard work that has gone into the Bill, which I really do appreciate. It is very impressive.
As I set out in my opening remarks, the Bill’s underlying intent—that public servants should be provided with high-quality pensions on a fair and equal basis—is shared throughout the House. I listened closely to Members’ comments today and am grateful for them. I hope I have provided reassurance where it was sought and that we can continue to work together on the Bill. I look forward to further consideration on Report.
Tulip Siddiq
Thank you, Sir Graham, for chairing the Committee, and I also thank your co-Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma).
Even though we did not win the votes, we broadly support the Bill. We recognise that the remedy needs to be put in place. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate and I thank Mark and my team, who worked very hard on the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported .
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 3 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, 3 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
Humanist Marriages
(2 years, 3 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
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and wear masks. I think that officially went overnight; nevertheless, the advice is still to wear masks. I call Crispin Blunt to move the motion.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered humanist marriages in England and Wales.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate in response to my application just last week. I appreciate the Committee’s immediate response to the application, but inevitably, many of the supporters I named have been unable to rearrange their diaries to speak this afternoon. However, there is support on this issue from a broad section of the political spectrum, and I hope the quality of the debate will do justice to that support.
From my own party, we have support from my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), from my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), who I see is in his place, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood).
Today, 53 members of both Houses have written to the Lord Chancellor urging immediate legal recognition of humanist marriages, in the light of the recent move to recognise outdoor civil and religious marriages, which, as I will explain, has removed the last vestige of the arguments put forward by the Government for not getting on with what would be a welcome reform for so many people in our country.
Humanist weddings are non-religious wedding ceremonies that are conducted by humanist celebrants. Humanists UK defines a humanist as a non-religious person who trusts
“the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works”
and does not rely on
“the idea of the supernatural…makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals”
and
“believes that, in the absence of”
evidence for
“an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.”
Humanist ceremonies are a manifestation of what gives our lives meaning—the meaning we create for ourselves and the happiness we bring about in others. Ceremonies, then, are a reflection of what will be most meaningful to the participants. They are built around the idea that the best ceremonies are all about the participants—their beliefs, their values, their family, their friends and their wider place in the world—and they recognise the need to be inclusive of all those attending and their diverse religions and beliefs.
I chair the all-party parliamentary humanist group with the noble Baroness Bakewell, and the secretariat is provided by Humanists UK. Humanists UK trains and accredits celebrants, particularly in conducting weddings. Such celebrants are trained specifically in how to make ceremonies as meaningful as possible for the participants, and their expertise and experience contributes to making these important moments in our journey through life of the greatest relevance and meaning to those who choose them.
The process of creating a thoughtful, meaningful and personal wedding ceremony for a couple is extensive. It is not unusual for a humanist celebrant to spend 35 to 40 hours—often even more—working closely with the couple. That is quite a lot longer than the average for most people who preside over weddings, who, in many cases, may turn up only for the marriage itself. That is because the process the humanist celebrant is engaged in is lengthy and is focused on getting to know the couple well, finding out what matters to them collectively, and helping them explore what most matters to them about each other, so that the ceremony can be as meaningful, and have as strong and lasting an impact as possible. The impact of the ceremony is reinforced by the ceremony’s being in the location most meaningful to the couple. That often means the kinds of places that already get approved as premises for civil marriages; it could be the family’s back garden, or their local beach or park. I have even heard of couples choosing to have their wedding in the very spot they met or got engaged.
The consequence of this process is that humanist marriages are more likely to last. All parties recognise the public policy benefits of stable relationships, which ought to make the legal recognition of humanist marriages an uncontroversial public good. I understand that many couples, if not most, stay in touch with the humanist celebrant who conducted their wedding for years afterwards. They highly value the process in which they engaged in getting to the wedding day and the relationship that they built with the celebrant. I rather doubt that most participants in civil marriages are still in touch with the registrar who conducted their marriage or, frankly, can remember their name.
The training to become a humanist celebrant provided by Humanists UK is an extensive process, and those who embark on it do so with no guarantee of success. Humanists UK courses run for several months and include an induction day, residential training sessions, coursework and a mentor to support the training from the outset. Once accredited—many who start the programme are not—celebrants become part of a growing national network. They are quality assured and regulated by a code of conduct, and they have a transparent complaints procedure and mandatory ongoing professional development. A former Registrar General for England and Wales, Paul Pugh, has trained to be a humanist celebrant with Humanists UK in order to conduct funerals. He certainly believes that the training provided is rigorous enough to merit legal recognition for Humanists UK celebrants, as do the Northern Ireland Executive, who also deal with Humanists UK.
Given all this, it can hardly be a surprise that humanist marriages have taken off in jurisdictions where they have been legally recognised. In Scotland, they gained recognition as long ago as 2005. In 2019, they made up some 23% of all marriages—a truly impressive figure that I understand even includes some Members of this House. In 2012, such marriages gained recognition in the Republic of Ireland, where they now account for 10% of all marriages. Since 2018, they have gained legal recognition in Northern Ireland, Jersey and Guernsey. It is early days, but I understand that the number of humanist marriages in Northern Ireland—regardless of one’s impression of religious adherence and people’s enthusiasm for it in the Province—is following precisely the same trajectory as in Scotland and Ireland.
That brings me to England and Wales, where, at present, there is no legal recognition of humanist marriages. That means that couples who have a humanist wedding—around 1,400 do so with Humanists UK every year—must also have a civil marriage separately in order to gain legal recognition. That can be a big financial burden; if the couple wish to have their wedding and marriage at the weekend, many local authorities will charge upwards of £500 for a civil marriage. That is a burden that religious couples do not face.
In addition, many local authorities are making it increasingly difficult for people to access a cheaper ceremony. There is a statutory option of around £50 that local authorities must offer, but many have taken such options off their websites. Some restrict marriages to just one registry office—for example, North Yorkshire, which is the biggest authority in the country, restricts them to just Harrogate—and many severely limit what such ceremonies can entail. Humanists UK tells of local authorities restricting attendance to the couple and their two adult witnesses, meaning that if they have children, they cannot attend. Some have banned having flowers or even exchanging rings.
Either way, such couples face distressing questions from their loved ones about which is their real marriage or when their wedding anniversary is. It is very sad that the wedding that they wish to see as their real act of commitment is not the one that the state enables—and for what purpose? Why do we not have legal recognition here? I think there are two ways of answering that question. One is to reflect on what has happened over the last decade and the justifications that the Government have given at each point in time for their behaviour, and the other is to think about what might have been going through the Government’s mind but has not been made a matter of record.
The Government gained the power to extend legal recognition of humanist marriages all the way back in 2013. The power was given to them by Parliament through the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, and it was clear at the time that there was a majority in both Houses in favour of using that power. Indeed, what the Government said at the time suggested that they intended to do so. All that stood in the way was that the relevant part of the 2013 Act mandated that the Government must consult on the matter first. Indeed, it was proper that the Government did so to determine how best to use that order-making power. The Government duly consulted in 2014, and the consultation found over 95% of people in favour of a change in the law.
What happened next was where things went off script for people who were anticipating the opportunity to have their marriage and wedding in the way that they wanted. Instead of proceeding to draft the required statutory instrument, the Minister responsible for marriage at the time, Simon Hughes, decided to refer the matter to the Law Commission for further investigation. The Government’s response to the consultation gave the following justification for that decision:
“One key difficulty concerns where belief marriages would take place… allowing belief marriages to take place at unrestricted locations would create a further difference in treatment in our marriage law”
and
“would create an inequality for the majority of religious groups and couples who are restricted to their registered place of worship. Registration services report a growing demand for outdoor marriages, and the Government is aware that allowing belief marriages in unrestricted locations may also be seen as unfair by couples who are neither religious nor humanist but who also may want a greater choice of marriage venues.”
Marriage law at that time allowed for marriages to happen outdoors if they were conducted by Quakers, Jewish groups, the Church of England or the Church in Wales. Forms of marriage other than deathbed marriages were restricted to either registered places of worship in the case of religious marriages, or register offices and other indoor approved premises in the case of civil marriages. Relatedly, it was said that the kind of piecemeal legislation being sought, and the added complexity that it would bring, was undesirable given the apparent inconsistency in existing marriage law.
The inconsistency in marriage law is clearly problematic, but I hope that colleagues will see from what I have said why outdoor weddings are particularly important in the humanist tradition. At any rate, the inconsistency does not seem to me a good justification for blocking recognition of humanist marriages as a whole. None the less, that key difficulty was used as justification to refer the whole question to the Law Commission to examine further. The Government stated:
“We wish to avoid any negative consequences that may result from undertaking further piecemeal legislation… The Government will therefore ask the Law Commission if it will begin as soon as possible a broader review of the law concerning marriage ceremonies.”
That is where the issue got firmly stuck in the long grass. In 2015, the Law Commission produced its report. It did not conduct the broader review it had been tasked with; instead, it simply concluded that, although the fact that humanist marriages were not legally recognised was unfair, the inconsistency around outdoor marriages and concerns about piecemeal reform justified its asking to do a second and even more thorough review of marriage law as a whole.
Now, the Government did not appear to have an immediate appetite for that, as they did not respond to the Law Commission proposals for some two years. When they did finally respond, in 2017, they said no to taking things further. That was the end of the road until 2018, when a humanist couple threatened litigation over the failure to extend legal recognition to humanist marriages. It is a pretty sad state of affairs that a stated Government intention to move in this area in 2013 had, by 2018, resulted in the human rights courts having to be engaged in trying to establish this right for humanists in England and Wales. Shortly after that, the Government announced they would, after all, be commissioning the larger Law Commission review. There was then a further year’s delay while the Government and the Law Commission worked to agree the terms of reference for that review.
Perhaps, if my hon. Friend the Minister is familiar with “Yes Minister”—I appreciate that that was my generation’s early-evening television rather than his—he will see that there is a certain pattern emerging. The review was meant to conclude last year, but it has been delayed further by the pandemic, and it is now expected to conclude in July.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is making some excellent points. I am here having met my constituent Dawn Davies, who is a celebrant; I know that she has been frustrated by the timescales that my hon. Friend has just outlined. Assuming that the Law Commission report does come forward in July this year, when does he anticipate that there might be legislation forthcoming for England and Wales?
Crispin Blunt
Well, here, of course, we are in the hands of the Minister and his colleagues in Government. I am afraid that I have lost count of the number of Ministers—Ministers of State, Under-Secretaries of State and Justice Secretaries—I have engaged with on this issue over the last few years, but it is really quite a lot. I hope that I can convince the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), that he is going to be the one to finally get this done.
The case that I seek to make is that delay is no longer tolerable, fair or reasonable. In the end, the law will take its course in the courts if people are forced to go to the European Court of Human Rights to achieve their convention rights, when it is so evident what is happening in the rest of the country. I am absolutely confident that the Minister and the Justice Secretary will clearly understand the arguments and the situation, and will finally get on and deliver this long-overdue reform.
Not all the delays are the fault of the present Government, which came to power only after the second Law Commission review got under way. One can speculate as to why the previous two Governments did not bring about legal recognition. Prime Minister David Cameron acted bravely in grasping the nettle and bringing in same-sex marriages long before many other similar jurisdictions did. However, there may have been some feeling about religious groups’ displeasure with that measure, and that may have had some influence on the appetite within Government to bring about further reforms of marriage law. Of course, those reactions are now quite unjustifiable.
That is ironic, because the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), said in his reply to me at oral questions this morning that the Church of England is not aware of any religious groups that oppose legal recognition of humanist marriages, and that in principle the Church of England is in favour of humanists having this power. It would have been better if my hon. Friend’s answer had been clearer and less equivocal—he referred back to all the practical difficulties for the Government that have been observed over the years since 2013—but it was useful to get it on the record that the Church of England is, in principle, in favour.
This Government are a strong champion of freedom, for both individuals and in terms of freedom of choice. As long as nothing moves on this issue, Her Majesty’s Government are continuing to obstruct this freedom for humanists, and for a growing share of the population who belong to no religion. Her Majesty’s Government have at the forefront of their agenda the need to level up different regions of the United Kingdom to provide equal opportunities for all. This situation is a plain example of where England and Wales need levelling up so that their citizens can enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities already enjoyed by the citizens of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Finally, I turn my attention to what has happened under this Government, which inherited a court case from the previous Administration. Six couples were taking the matter before the High Court. They claimed discrimination, given that religious couples can have legally recognised marriages in line with their beliefs. The judge in that case agreed, ruling that
“the present law gives rise to…discrimination.”
She wrote that
“the discrimination suffered by the Claimants is real: the difference of treatment they experience in seeking to manifest their humanist beliefs through the ceremony of marriage is a matter of substance, not merely one of form.”
She also ruled that the Secretary of State for Justice could not
“simply sit on his hands”
and do nothing. However, given the ongoing Law Commission review, she also said that the Government’s refusal to act immediately could be justified at this time. She did so because she considered that the desire of the defendant—the Justice Secretary—
“to consider any reform on a wholesale, rather than piecemeal, basis”
was a legitimate aim. She wrote:
“In the present case, the Government has identified concerns as to the potential consequences of addressing one area of unequal treatment without doing so as part of a more general reform. Specifically, in relation to the treatment of humanist and other non-religious belief marriages, particular issues were identified relating to the location where the ceremony might take place…these were matters seen to potentially give rise to new species of discrimination if reform was only undertaken on a piecemeal basis.”
From that, she concluded:
“Although I may deprecate the delay that has occurred since 2015, I cannot ignore the fact that there is currently an on-going review of the law of marriage in this country”.
That brings us to what then happened last year. In June, the Government extended legal recognition to outdoor civil marriages on an interim basis. In December, they launched a consultation on making that move permanent, making the same move for religious marriages. Both can be done by statutory instrument. The moves limit marriages to outdoor parts of approved premises, but I understand that such a limitation is something that humanist celebrants would be happy with, on an initial basis, as a way to get things going for them.
These moves by the Government tear up the objection to piecemeal reform in general terms that the Government and their predecessors have given for not wanting to enact legal recognition of humanist marriages before the Law Commission completes its review this July. They can only maintain an objection to piecemeal reform if they do not undertake such piecemeal reform. These moves are the very piecemeal reform that the Government said was the reason why they could not enact legal recognition of humanist marriages.
Now that outdoor marriages are under way for others, what possible reason is left not to lay the statutory instrument bringing about recognition for marriages conducted by Humanists UK celebrants? Such a reform need only be interim. The law could be drafted explicitly with the intention that it is superseded by whatever follows the Law Commission review, if anything does. Legal recognition must follow that review, as I have explained. That is what the High Court ruled in 2020.
Making that change would remove an unnecessary burden for the 1,400 couples a year who have a humanist wedding at present, despite the fact that they have to have a double ceremony, with a civil marriage administered separately. For those couples, it would be particularly welcome.
During the pandemic—we do not know where the rules on that will take us; we are on a positive trend at the minute, but we have had some disagreeable surprises over the last two years—we have seen the whole problem for the wedding industry play out. Giving couples the opportunity to make their marriages really meaningful, by committing their resources to a ceremony that really means something for them, would be of obvious economic benefit for an important part of our hospitality sector. That change would greatly enhance the freedom of choice for the hundreds—if not thousands—of other couples who want a humanist wedding but decide that they simply cannot afford one because of the lack of legal recognition. Evidence from Scotland points to the legal recognition of humanist marriages coinciding with the end of the long-term decline in marriage numbers. Surely, more people getting married is something that this Government should strongly support. Indeed, I would imagine that every political party would want to support that. We ought to be trying to get that done now, as soon as possible, given the delays we have suffered.
Legal recognition would also help to deal with the current backlog and demand for civil registrars caused by the pandemic delaying many marriages. There simply are not enough registrars to go around, so many couples are reporting difficulties in being able to get married when they want. Expanding the range of people who can conduct legally recognised marriages would definitely assist in that.
All of that, as I have said before, will be a welcome boost to the wider wedding industry: the venues, the florists, the caterers, the photographers, the cake-makers, and so on—the cake-makers are very much at the forefront of our minds at the moment. Many of those are small, local businesses. Having more marriages is good for the economy and for families, and is clearly a matter of public policy when the public benefit is clear in every sense.
A possible statutory instrument to enact legal recognition has already been drafted. A previous Lord Chancellor suggested that I arrange for that to happen, so it was prepared in consultation with the counsel for domestic legislation. We have done it. The Government do not even need to it themselves; they just have to check our work.
The measure is modelled on the existing provisions for the Society of Friends. It applies specifically to Humanists UK, as the only organisation providing humanist weddings in England and Wales, and one that undoubtedly has the processes in place, and the good repute, to guarantee that ceremonies will be solemn and dignified, with no risk of sham weddings. That is not to say, however, that if another organisation was to emerge, with the sufficient standing and good repute to also merit it, it could not also gain legal recognition through another order—nor that a different system might come into place after the Law Commission review.
There is no good reason for further delays. The Government’s own actions have now removed whatever vestige of the thinnest of arguments that remained standing in the way of this reform, which would mean so much to so many who get married in the future. To what purpose are we adding to the now nine years’ worth of couples who have not enjoyed that freedom since Parliament gave the Government the power to deliver it?
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) on securing this important debate, and the Backbench Business Committee on granting it.
I declare that I am a humanist, and a member of Humanists UK. I believe that people have one life, and that they shape it in the here and now. As we strive for a tolerant world, where rational thinking and kindness prevail, we must stand together against all forms of discrimination. In that vein, it is discriminatory that humanist weddings are still not legally recognised in England and Wales.
As we have heard, humanist marriages gained legal recognition in Scotland in 2005, the Republic of Ireland in 2012 and in Northern Ireland in 2018 following a Court of Appeal ruling concluded that a failure to do so would breach human rights. The popularity of humanist marriages speaks for itself. It is the most popular form of belief-based wedding in Scotland, the second most popular in the Republic of Ireland, and the fastest-growing type in Northern Ireland.
We heard much from the hon. Member for Reigate as he outlined what humanist weddings are in broad terms. I want to focus on the experience of couples who have had humanist weddings in order to illustrate what they are, build greater understanding and highlight the injustices caused by the present law. I am grateful to Humanists UK for providing me with examples that illustrate the range of people’s experiences. Some of the examples come from the recently published “The Little Book of Humanist Weddings”, of which I have a copy, and I can talk about the examples today with kind permission from the authors.
I very much agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Reigate about ceremonies and the importance that they have at significant points in our lives. Every couple is different, so what is meaningful to them is unique, and that is why every humanist wedding is unique. As humanist celebrant Laura Gimson has said,
“I used to think we all loved in roughly the same way, but actually the specificity of love is what keeps my job as a celebrant so interesting. It’s such a joy to uncover the many and varied ways that we humans show our fondness for one another.”
As celebrant Zena Birch has said, the preparations that go into a humanist wedding are just as important for the couples as the wedding itself. She says:
“A humanist marriage does start off with a celebration and a party, just like all weddings. But the preparation that goes in beforehand enhances the intentions of the celebration and focuses both the couple and their guests on what is important and at the heart of this rite of passage.”
As has been pointed out, it is no wonder humanist marriages are so successful in producing sustained relationships.
One important aspect is picking the right location. To quote Zena again:
“With all of this forethought something that very rarely gets chosen offhandedly is where my couples wish to hold their ceremony. Over the years I have had the privilege to be welcomed into some extraordinary spaces and what most of them have in common is that the locations themselves hold meaning and relevance to the couple. Be it from a charmingly romantic perspective... where my couple shared their first kiss…To locations which hold an emotional poignancy…a beach where the bride had previously scattered her dad’s ashes…In lieu of a place of worship, these locations hold an equal import to my couples.”
Then there is the question of who attends. In the words of celebrant Ewan Main:
“No one human being is an island. We are all, as individuals, connected to others, and community with others is one of the most important things in leading a happy life. What is true of us as individuals is also true of us as couples. The community that surrounds you is one of the things that sustains your relationship. Guests at a wedding—if they’re really valued, trusted guests—really do care about what’s happening at the front, because it’s a little bit about them too. I like to comment in weddings, sometimes, on the fact that everyone sitting in this room together now has one thing in common that they didn’t before. A marriage grows from and reflects connections, and it makes new ones too.”
Weddings often commence with the journey down the aisle. As Zena Birch says:
“As with all traditions, it is possible to bring this one up to date. By using this moment to ask whoever has accompanied the walk down the aisle ‘do you affirm x and x’s choice to get married’ as opposed to ‘who brings this woman to wed this man’ you are honouring a tradition and making it relevant all at the same time. You are also showing, right from the outset, that every word spoken, in this case the question posed and the answer received, has been thought through, is appropriate, relevant and honest. There are no echoey, empty words for the sake of it in a humanist ceremony script. There is no reason why you can’t pose this same question to all sets of parents, setting the tone right from the very start: that words matter and that equality is acknowledged.”
Then there is the script. As celebrant Janette Smith said:
“At the heart of a humanist wedding ceremony is not a sermon, but a sharing of your story, the unique retelling of what drew you together, told to those who genuinely care—because you as a couple are the thing every single guest has in common. By interweaving the story of your relationship origin and development, the highs and the lows…the moments guests themselves will recognise being part of, everyone in the gathering will be invested in the outcome.”
In the words of celebrant Hester Brown:
“I ask couples to think, ‘What do I really want to promise to my partner? And what would I like to be promised? Which of these are essential?’ and to discuss it with each other. It provides a valuable opportunity to find out whether your partner’s hopes and needs are compatible with yours. And, perhaps, to be inspired by the potential and new horizons they open to you. At the heart of humanism is the knowledge that we are deeply dependent on other people for our happiness and, at the same time, we need to be free. The songbird comes and sings beautifully to the princess, but when she puts it in a cage, it falls silent.
I think the most important thing I tell my couples is that equality and kindness are at the heart of the humanist vision of marriage. Respecting the other’s space to learn and grow. Two independent people choosing to spend their lives together because their love gives them courage and hope, gives them a home. Not facing in on each other but walking along life’s path together, hand in hand.”
The ceremony can contain various symbolic actions intended to bind the couple together, including hand-fasting, which is the tying together of couples’ hands with ribbons or cords, with different threads symbolising different things. The family can be involved in the untying. The ceremony can include some traditionally religious or cultural rituals that stop short of acts of worship and are not included for religious reasons but pay tribute to a certain heritage none the less.
Ceremonies can also include the blending of sands. Two of the claimants in the 2020 court case were Jennifer McCalmont and Finbar Graham from Carrickfergus in Northern Ireland, where, as we have heard, humanist marriages are legally recognised. Even so, they chose to have their humanist wedding on the beach in Devon, where they first went on holiday together, and near where Jenny’s parents live. For them, that was the most meaningful location to get married. They could think of no location where they would rather wed than Northam beach, and they felt so strongly about the matter that they decided to launch a legal case to change the law in a jurisdiction where they do not reside to match the law in the jurisdiction where they do. Unfortunately, the case did not succeed, so they had to go ahead with their wedding without legal recognition, but as part of their ceremony, they took sand from their beach in Carrickfergus and blended it with the sand from the beach in Northam, symbolically blending the two locations that were of most significance to them.
It is possible to give the exchange of rings extra significance, as Laura Gimson recounts:
“S and J’s ceremony took place in the centre of a circle of poplar trees in the garden of their family home. J had managed to fell a branch from one of the trees a few months earlier, and had tiny pieces of poplar wood inlaid into their wedding rings. As they exchanged them, they shared vows about how their wedding bands weren’t about status—they weren’t meant to be shiny and perfect and they weren’t a symbol of ownership. Instead, their rings would serve as a reminder of the exact place and time that they made the choice to live their lives side by side.”
Why have a humanist wedding? Laura Lacole was the claimant in the court case that led to legally recognised humanist marriages in Northern Ireland, and as a result she had the first one there with her husband Eunan O’Kane. She explained to the court:
“I am a person that acts on my beliefs and values. It is only natural then, for me to seek to have those beliefs and values expressed through my marriage ceremony... My desire to have a legally valid humanist marriage is central to my own humanist identity. The act of getting married is, of course, deeply personal and is bound up with my humanist beliefs, values, and aspirations. Humanists do not, in general, have weekly communal gatherings (like a church might) and so my marriage ceremony provides me with a rare, communal, event at which I can express and celebrate my humanism with my husband to be and our family and friends.”
What of the problem of having to have two ceremonies, which was set out earlier? In 2018, the all-party parliamentary humanist group surveyed local authority websites to see what they were offering, and consulted humanist celebrants for their experiences. The results were published in the APPG’s “Any lawful impediment?” report. The issues identified in the report included difficulties booking same-day ceremonies, and many local authorities charging £500 or more for a weekend ceremony. There were difficulties with same-building ceremonies, or with the presence of the humanist celebrant at the legal ceremony. Both situations should be allowed, but there were reports of registrars objecting to them, and claiming sometimes that they might invalidate the legality of the civil marriage.
There were tales of registrars threatening approved premises’ licences because of the number of humanist ceremonies being performed, and of registrars more generally trying to warn couples off having humanist ceremonies. There was widespread evidence of registrars not offering cheap, no-frills ceremonies on their websites. Many of them restricted the times and locations at which such ceremonies were available, or how quickly they were available. For example, such ceremonies were restricted to one room in one council building, or to just Tuesday mornings once a month. A staggering 90% of registrars did not offer such ceremonies at the weekend.
Many registrars restrict what can happen at no-frills ceremonies, for example limiting the number of guests to just the two required witnesses, which is particularly challenging if the couple has young children, or disallowing the presence of flowers or even the exchange of rings. So, can the Minister say what conversations they may have had with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities with regard to those actions by local authorities?
Finally, it seems plain to me that the only way really to fix these problems is to change the law on humanist marriages and I hope that the Minister is convinced that that change cannot come soon enough.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) on securing this debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. The hon. Member explained very clearly what humanist beliefs are, and also talked about the care taken and the research conducted by a humanist celebrant in working with a couple to prepare for a marriage ceremony. He also set out the history of such marriages very clearly.
The most important point to make is that it is clear that the Government have undermined their own argument that all changes should wait until some sort of wholesale reform of marriage legislation. They have done so by making the temporary provisions for outdoor weddings into permanent ones. Therefore, that sets a precedent and blows out of the water the idea that everything has to wait for something that may never actually happen.
Of course, where there is a will, there is a way. The hon. Member mentioned the use of statutory instruments; indeed, in good “Blue Peter” fashion, he has one that he had prepared earlier all ready for the Minister. However, there are of course many precedents of the Government including a specific section on one topic in a Bill that mainly deals with rather different subject matter. Some Bills are the classic Christmas tree, with provisions to deal with all sorts of different matters included in them. I feel sure that the necessary will to make this change is what is needed and then an appropriate vehicle can be found, and that the skills of those drafting the Bill would prevent any problems with unintended consequences, which again has been given as an excuse for not making this change now but instead leaving it for some larger reform of marriage law.
Crispin Blunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her support on this issue. The statutory instrument or the powers are already there under the Act I referred to; we do not need another Bill. The Government can proceed at a time of their choosing.
Nia Griffith
Indeed—again, that was very well put.
We know that in Scotland, of course, under a Labour Scottish Government legal recognition was given to humanist marriages back in 2005; in the Republic of Ireland, it was given in 2012; and in Northern Ireland, it was given in 2018. In Wales, we do not have the devolved power to legislate for humanist marriages, but the Welsh Government are very supportive of the legal recognition of humanist marriages and would very much—
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Does the hon. Lady share my frustration that in Wales—the country of both Nye Bevan, who was a committed humanist, and of course the late First Minister of Wales, Rhodri Morgan, who I believe was among the first to be given a state humanist funeral in the Senedd—we have not seen progress sooner, especially given that, as she has just pointed out, the Welsh Government are also supportive of the change that is being sought?
Nia Griffith
Indeed—that was very well outlined by the hon. Member. The support is there from the Welsh Government and the humanist tradition is also there in Wales. So this change is something we would very much welcome and want to see.
Of course, people may say, “Oh well, a couple can go and have their civil marriage and then they can have the celebration of their choosing afterwards”. But I would argue that that does not really give the humanist viewpoint and ceremonies the same status as that given to the religious viewpoint and ceremonies. Indeed, the High Court has ruled that that lack of legal recognition is, in fact, discrimination.
Why should humanists have to feel that they are second-class citizens and that their celebration does not count? Why should they have to wonder, as the hon. Member for Reigate pointed out, which is the date of their wedding anniversary if the civil ceremony took place on one day and their own celebration took place on another day?
As has also been noted, the legal recognition of humanist marriages in Scotland resulted in the number of couples opting for a humanist wedding increasing to over 6,000 in 2019—more than 20% of the total—and there are now more humanist marriages than Christian marriages in Scotland. Legal recognition gives humanist weddings a status, and more people then feel confident about seeking out the humanist option for a wedding, because they believe it is real and do not feel that it is somehow not good enough, does not really count or is second-class. It has the genuine status that obviously everybody would wish their wedding and marriage to have.
Our laws in respect of religion are very outdated and do not reflect the current beliefs of the population. Here in Parliament, both with the Church of England bishops in the House of Lords and the format of Prayers in the Commons, we are made very conscious on a daily basis that we still have an established church: the Church of England. However, the British Social Attitudes Survey of 2018 shows that only 12% of the population are Anglican, with some 52% of the population describing themselves as non-religious. Of course, the Church in Wales was disestablished over 100 years ago, back in 1920.
Our legislation has a lot of catching up to do in order to reflect the society we live in. We now have a majority of the population—some 52%—who have to make do with second best for what is one of the most important moments in their lives. What happens is that many people who have no religious belief end up in religious settings because of the convenience, which should not have to be the case. It should not have to be that because they cannot get themselves halfway across North Yorkshire, they opt for something local instead, or for something that does not reflect their background and beliefs.
I have attended humanist funerals that were planned by families and that respected the fact that the deceased did not have a belief in the afterlife. Those are recognised as legitimate funerals. I have attended humanist civic ceremonies for incoming mayors or chairs of local councils. Those are recognised as appropriate ceremonies and, again, reflect the beliefs of the people taking part. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) has described the preparation that can be made for a humanist wedding, the thought that goes into it, and the beliefs that the people have—all those make it a very special moment. To deny people the idea that it is the genuine ceremony, the genuine act and the marriage itself, is an insult to the work and preparation and the feelings that they have.
Let us get on with it now and have legal recognition for humanist marriages. We recognise that we are in a particularly difficult situation at the moment, post covid, with so many having had to put off the opportunity to have weddings—sometimes once, twice or even three times. As has been mentioned already, having celebrants who are able to deliver a legal marriage would mean less pressure on registrars, and it would help to clear the backlog. On that note, I say once again to the Minister that this matter is something that could be resolved very quickly and easily and be well supported by Members across the House.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Because I am nice, I call the last of the Back Benchers—Jeff Smith.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Thank you, Dr Huq; it is really good to see you in the Chair. I apologise for my late arrival—I had another commitment —and thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) on securing the debate, and I am sorry that I missed most of his speech.
Jeff Smith
I do not doubt it.
I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary humanist group and a member of Humanists UK.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Dr Ahmed Shaheed, recently conducted a survey of marriage laws around the world. He found that, broadly speaking, there are four approaches. The first, which is the most common, is for the state to legally recognise only civil marriages, or perhaps to not even recognise any ceremony at all and simply have the state involved in signing the paperwork entirely separately from any ceremonial aspects. That is seen in most European countries, including—most famously—France but also Germany; across much of Asia, with China, Korea and Japan taking the non-ceremonial approach; in most of Latin America; and across much of Africa.
The second approach is to recognise only religious marriages. That is the case across much of the middle east, north Africa, Iran, Indonesia and Malaysia. In Dr Shaheed’s view, that is not human rights-compliant because it denies couples the chance to have a marriage at all unless it is religious, and in some cases only of a certain religion. The third approach is for the state to recognise religious and civil marriages but not humanist marriages. As we have heard, that is the approach in England and Wales. It is easy to assume that, because that is the situation here, it is quite typical of the situation everywhere else, but that is not the case. In fact, it is seen only in a few European countries, with the nearest to us probably being Denmark, and—possibly due to the colonial inheritance—in a number of Commonwealth countries in Africa, the Caribbean and in parts of Canada.
Finally, the fourth approach is to also legally recognise humanist marriages. That is now the situation in the large majority of our neighbours, namely Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Channel Islands, Norway and Iceland, and also the US, Australia, New Zealand and other parts of Canada. Common to all the countries in the latter section is that they started off recognising only religious and civil marriages but moved to recognising humanist marriages either because of political will and political pressure or following court cases, as was the situation in Northern Ireland and parts of the US. That demonstrates that we are perhaps more isolated than we might realise.
It is also worth knowing what Dr Shaheed thinks of each approach, in terms of human rights. Recognising only civil marriages may not be as flexible in giving people what they want. Famously, in France, it is common for Catholic churches to be situated opposite town halls, so that a wedding party can easily transition from the civil marriage to the religious ceremony. None the less, that is seen by Dr Shaheed as lawful, because it treats everyone equally, regardless of their religion or belief; he does not believe that approach violates international human rights treaties. As already mentioned, recognising only religious ceremonies is wrong, compelling people to take part in religious acts or denying them the right to marry at all.
However, in Dr Shaheed’s view, recognising only civil and religious marriages also represents discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. It treats religious people more favourably than humanists, offering the former a privilege that is denied to the latter. That privilege does not have to be offered to any religious or humanist group, but where it is, it should be offered to all. That is the case in the US and Ireland. It can also be seen in the universal periodic review of the UK conducted by Dr Shaheed’s predecessor Asma Jahangir as long ago as 2008. In that review, she wrote that
“humanists made the criticism that in practice there are institutional and legal examples of discrimination against non-religious believers…while humanist weddings are legal in Scotland since June 2005, marriages conducted by humanist celebrants are not recognized in the law of England and Wales.”
That was in 2005—17 years ago—and nothing has changed since.
The correctness of Dr Shaheed’s assessment can be seen in the judgment of the High Court in the 2008 case, R (Harrison and others) v. Secretary of State for Justice, in which the judge found that
“there is a continuing discriminatory impact upon those who seek to manifest their humanist beliefs through marriage…the discrimination suffered by the Claimants is real: the difference of treatment they experience in seeking to manifest their humanist beliefs through the ceremony of marriage is a matter of substance, not merely one of form…I have found that—subject only to the question of justification—the present law gives rise to article 14 discrimination in the Claimants enjoyment of their article 9 rights.”
She rules that the Secretary of State for Justice cannot
“simply sit on his hands”
and do nothing. The judge also said that she had given the Government the benefit of the doubt that they would reform marriage law after the Law Commission review. She wrote:
“Although I may deprecate the delay that has occurred since 2015, I cannot ignore the fact that there is currently an on-going review of the law of marriage in this country that will necessarily engage with the wider concerns that have been raised.”
She found that,
“the Defendant’s stated desire to consider any reform on a wholesale, rather than piecemeal, basis”
was a legitimate aim, because,
“the Government has identified concerns as to the potential consequences of addressing one area of unequal treatment without doing so as part of a more general reform. Specifically, in relation to the treatment of humanist and other non-religious belief marriages, particular issues were identified relating to the location where the ceremony might take place…these were matters seen to potentially give rise to new species of discrimination if reform was only undertaken on a piecemeal basis.”
That was the Government’s defence, but they have undermined that legitimate aim through their action on outdoor civil and religious marriages. That is not to say that I do not welcome the reforms to enable outdoor marriages—I do—but merely to say that it leaves the Government with no excuse to not also legally recognise humanist marriages.
What I find most difficult to understand about the Government’s position is that the judgment in that case is legally binding case law that the Government must follow. Even before the outdoor marriage reforms, it was the case that the Government must extend legal recognition to humanist marriages after the Law Commission review is over. Yet the Government’s repeated position, in response to all letters, parliamentary questions and other approaches since the 2020 judgment, has been to simply say:
“The Government will decide on provision for non-religious belief marriage in light of the Law Commission's recommendations.”
Even in the light of the judgment, the Government have not committed to acting at the end of the review, only saying that they will decide whether to act once the review is over. How can that position possibly be tenable, given the very clear judgment from the High Court?
I have three questions for the Minister. Will the Government today commit to legally recognising humanist marriages at the earliest opportunity? Failing that, will they commit to doing so after the current review? If so, how soon do they intend to bring that legislation into force? These are really important questions about ending discrimination in this country, to give everybody a fair chance.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
What a pleasure to speak in a debate chaired by my constituency neighbour, Dr Huq, I think for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) on bringing this important debate forward. I was intending to speak in it, before I was elevated—if that is the right word—to the spokesperson position. He has championed this issue, and others. Only this week, I was lobbied by the National Secular Society on his Education (Assemblies) Bill. He is the apostle of the secular, but never of the mundane.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), who have all spoken eloquently, with examples of how humanist marriage works and their own testimony as humanists. They have also, which has been a common theme in the debate, emphasised the logic of where the issue is going and the unfairness of the current situation.
There is really only one point for the Minister to address, which is to explain the puzzle of why the Government are dragging their feet. I hope we will hear a clear exposition on that. In the words of the letter from 53 MPs—including myself—that we have heard referred to, humanist couples in England and Wales simply ask to have the same freedom of choice to marry in line with their beliefs as their religious counterparts. I hope the Minister does not disagree with that.
I have another quote, this time from my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), about putting right
“a long-standing injustice in a simple and uncontroversial way.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 1074.]
The door is open, more than ajar, and the Government have only a small step to take through it. My hon. Friend said those words in a debate on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, to which she, from the Labour Front Bench, was proposing an amendment that would have extended legal recognition to humanist marriages. That is now nine years ago. As has been the case throughout, she was supported by colleagues from across the House.
Labour supported similar amendments during the passage of the Bill through the House of Lords. Its efforts led to section 14 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which gives the Government the power to enact legal recognition of humanist marriages by order. In other words, most of the groundwork has been done. Looking back at Hansard, I am struck by the fact that during an earlier debate, when the late Lord Eden of Winton was objecting to the attempt to get humanist marriage into the Bill, my noble Friend Baroness Thornton, speaking for the Labour Front Bench, intervened on him to ask:
“Does the noble Lord think that the humanists need to wait another 19 years for another Bill to come passing by?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 June 2013; Vol. 746, c. 303.]
Well, we are nine years later already, so nearly half of that time has elapsed, and humanists are still waiting.
The Government have been reviewing the matter ever since, with several more years anticipated before they are prepared to legislate. They have not even committed to do so all this time later—the Minister could put that right today. In the face of the High Court decision in Harrison, which now looks a little disingenuous, given the position the Government took in that case, it looks as if Baroness Thornton’s question will sadly prove prescient.
In November last year, I spoke for the Labour Front Bench in the main Chamber on the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill. There has been a piecemeal approach to marriage reform over the last few years. I mentioned in that speech that there had been good movement and progressive legislation on civil partnerships and same-sex marriage.
One Bill that I was involved in was a private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and, indeed, enacted. It permitted opposite-sex couples to have civil partnerships. That was a peculiarity in the law and perhaps something that needed addressing. Again, it was a long struggle. My constituents Charles Keidan and Rebecca Steinfeld fought a four-year battle, going as far as the Supreme Court, for their right to have a civil partnership. The Government do not move easily on these matters, but they move in the end, and I wonder why they have to make it so difficult. With that in mind, my advice would be to learn from their past mistakes and stop dragging their feet by giving legal recognition to humanist marriage, instead of there being further delay.
To answer my question as to why humanists have been made to wait, in 2014 the Government conducted a consultation exercise about extending legal recognition in that way. The result was 95% in favour, but again the Government kicked it into the long grass. At that time, an article in The Sunday Times on the matter quoted a senior Government source as saying:
“Lynton Crosby and the Tories have basically said ‘no way’. They think this is a fringe issue and are saying, ‘why would we do this?’”
If that was an accurate report, Mr Crosby and his colleagues were wrong both to be so dismissive of the fundamental rights and freedoms of humanists and to think it was a fringe matter, given that humanist marriages have proven, even without legal status, to be hugely popular and have grown greatly in popularity in those jurisdictions where they are legally recognised.
As I mentioned, Labour has pledged to give legal recognition to humanist marriage, and that has been its consistent position for many years now. The Government have undermined their own position by introducing outdoor civil and religious marriages, as we have heard. Why are they okay? Why was that change made just a few week ago, but humanist marriage reform is not seen to be a priority? Why have humanists been at the back of the queue for so long, and what reason is there for making them wait any longer?
It is not only Labour that supports humanists and humanist marriages. As I said, colleagues from across the House support legal recognition of them—not just the Members who signed the letter that was published today but those who subscribed to speak in the debate, even if some of them have been unable to attend. The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who was for quite a period the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, introduced a Bill to bring about the legal recognition of humanist marriage in 2020. He said:
“The lack of legal recognition of humanist marriages in England and Wales is discrimination, pure and simple.”
Crispin Blunt
I am grateful to the hon. Member for reminding me that I had forgotten the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) to make that precise point about how much he supports the Government moving on the issue.
Andy Slaughter
I am glad to have jogged the hon. Gentleman’s memory. To continue with the quotation, the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham went on to say:
“This matter has been under review for some seven years now”—
this was two years ago—
“and that’s more than long enough. My Bill would bring about legal recognition of humanist marriages within three months of its passage, thus enabling the many who want a legally recognised humanist marriage to be able to have one now. It would not prevent further changes to the law, after the completion of the present Law Commission review, but would remedy the present discrimination.”
It seems certain that there would have been majority support for such a move, were the Government to have given it sufficient parliamentary time two years ago.
That support can be seen around the rest of the UK. We have heard that humanist marriages were introduced in Scotland in 2005—under a Labour Government, I might add—when the Registrar General identified that he could bring them about by reinterpreting existing legislation that applied to religious marriages. Sadly, the wording of the law in England and Wales renders such an approach here impossible.
Support can also be seen in Northern Ireland, where humanist marriages have been legally recognised since 2018. That was initially brought about by a court case that was necessary as a result of Government inertia during the lengthy collapse of the Executive. However, I understand from Northern Ireland humanists that since the resumption of power sharing they have had nothing but friendly and supportive meetings with Members of the Legislative Assembly and Ministers from all parties.
It is worth noting that the Northern Ireland Executive is currently consulting on introducing legislation to put humanist marriages on a firmer statutory footing, rather than relying on the court decision, as at present. That strikes me as a sensible way to go about things: fix the fundamental discrimination of the lack of legal recognition of humanist marriages as early as possible, get such marriages going, and then look to develop legislation to put them on the firmest possible footing. Such an approach avoids nine years and counting of consultation, and of disappointment for couples such as Kate Harrison and Christopher Sanderson—Kate being the lead claimant in the 2020 court case. They are waiting for a change in the law before getting married, mirroring the example of my constituents in the civil partnership case, who had to wait years simply to get something that most people regard as a basic human right. They have been waiting for far too long.
We have heard about Wales. Unfortunately for the Welsh, marriage law is not a devolved matter. Last year, the Labour Government in Wales wrote to the UK Government demanding immediate legal recognition of humanist marriages or, failing that, for marriage law to be devolved so that the Welsh Government could act where the UK Government have not. It is manifestly past time for the UK Government to act. I hope that they will now do so.
The law is discriminatory. It treats humanists as second -class citizens. It imposes additional financial burdens on them. The excuse that the Government wish to comprehensively address the issue is clearly wrong because they are approaching matters in a piecemeal way. It would be extremely simple to make the change. On that basis, I simply ask the Minister whether he can confirm what the Government will do—not waiting for the Law Commission initially—to bring humanist marriages into legal effect as quickly as possible. I have received numerous letters from constituents this week and last week—like many Members present, I am sure—in anticipation of the debate, all asking those questions and others.
This is not the only issue outstanding; I also mentioned, the last time we debated marriage, the issue of common-law marriage. I am not suggesting that we wait until we sort that problem out, because that is a problem that affects 3 million couples—6 million people. It has quite significant, and in some cases devastating, financial effects on people who believe they have security but find out upon the death of a partner, or after separation, that they simply do not. There are a lot of further steps that the Government need to take, but that is not a reason for holding up the simple, straightforward and uncontroversial step of giving legal status to humanist marriages. I hope we will hear from the Minister today that that is about to be done with great speed and enthusiasm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Tom Pursglove)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) for securing this debate, and for the way he has gone about representing his strongly held convictions on this issue. He is a tireless campaigner on the matter. I am grateful to colleagues from across the House who have attended the debate this afternoon to make the case for humanist marriage. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members who hold very strong views on this are not here this afternoon but regularly make the arguments for humanist marriage. I have no doubt that they will speak to me about it in the weeks and months ahead.
Marriage will always be one of our most important institutions, and the Government want to encourage the stability and commitment in family life that marriage and civil partnership provides. A wedding day is one of the most important days of a couple’s lives, and I understand that they want it to be personal and to reflect their beliefs and preferences—that will make their day all the more memorable. I have heard, and I recognise, the depth of feeling on the issue.
I personally see huge benefits to marriage: the commitment that marriage brings—that people are making that commitment to one another—and all the positive benefits that there are for children in a committed, loving family environment. That is very important and something that I am incredibly mindful of. I say that as someone who is not married, and has not been married—who knows what will happen in that regard in the future.
Crispin Blunt
I thank the Minister for his generous remarks about me and others, and also for what he has just said in a personal capacity. I cannot quite see any reason why he cannot say that as a member of Her Majesty’s Government. Surely, that must reflect our Government policy as well.
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that the Government certainly support the institution and the principle of marriage. I wanted to reflect my own personal sentiments in that regard, and to pick up on the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), about there being a perception in some quarters that the issue of humanist marriage is a fringe issue. I want to provide my hon. Friend with reassurance that, as the Minister responsible for marriage, I do not see this issue through that lens—that would not be right. There are many people in this country who feel very passionately about this and who want to see reform. It is fair to say that I am mindful of their views and of the strength of feeling with which they express them. I will set out in further remarks what the Government’s intentions are.
We must consider very carefully the implications of any changes to the law in this area. Currently, couples can marry in England and Wales through a civil ceremony conducted by a superintendent registrar or a registrar, or through a religious ceremony conducted by authorised members of that religion. Humanists have asked for provision that would not be available to all groups. It would allow them to marry in a place meaningful to them, without restriction on the location of the ceremony. Other groups would not have the same choice, as the law on marriage solemnization is generally based largely on the building in which the relevant marriage takes place. We therefore need to consider the implications very carefully.
Jeff Smith
The Minister makes the point about approved premises. What if we only have approved premises, but humanist marriages were allowed in those premises? That is something that Humanists UK is prepared to accept. Surely that would be a solution?
Tom Pursglove
I hear what the hon. Gentleman suggests. If I may, I will continue to make my argument and pick up on some of those points as I progress.
According to Humanists UK, 1,050 ceremonies are conducted by its celebrants in England and Wales each year. By comparison, according to the most recent Office for National Statistics publication on the topic, 186,614 civil marriages and 48,181 religious weddings took place in 2018.
Rachel Hopkins
I thank the Minister for citing those statistics, but does he accept that many humanists would have undertaken a civil ceremony as that was the only route open to them to get married, and that their preference would have been for a humanist wedding?
Tom Pursglove
I certainly take on board the hon. Lady’s point. Colleagues here this afternoon have made that argument in very strong terms, and it is one that I am mindful of. I also note the individuals who decided not to get married and to wait and see what the Government’s next steps will be following publication of the Law Commission’s report.
In 2014 the Government published a consultation paper and response assessing the potential merits of provision for non-religious belief marriages. It concluded that the matter was complex, and that by allowing humanists to solemnise marriages in unrestricted locations, the Government would create a provision for humanists that would not be available to all groups. To ensure that we consider the implications of changing the law on marriage for all groups, we invited the Law Commission to undertake a review, which is currently under way and is expected to report in July.
The Government remain committed to considering the case for more comprehensive and enduring reform to marriage law once the Law Commission has completed its fundamental review of the law in this area. Options being explored by the Law Commission include offering couples greater flexibility on the form of their own ceremonies; allowing the ceremony to take place in a much broader range of locations; and providing a framework that could allow non-religious belief organisations, such as humanists, and independent celebrants to conduct legally binding weddings.
As part of the review, the Law Commission will consider how marriage by humanist and other non-religious belief organisations could be incorporated into a revised or new scheme that is simple, fair and consistent for all groups. Legislating to allow humanist marriages now would pre-empt the Law Commission’s report, which is expected to provide a framework that could allow for humanist weddings. Although I recognise the frustration that many have felt while waiting for the publication of the Law Commission’s report, it is right that we do this properly through a wholesale reform of marriage law, which can provide for humanist marriage while preventing disparity from being created with other groups.
By looking at the law comprehensively, the Law Commission will be able to ensure that, in so far as possible, groups and couples are all subject to the same rules and the same level of regulation. The Law Commission’s recommendations are expected to eliminate the current situation where a couple with one set of beliefs is legally permitted to marry in one type of location—for example, in a private garden—but a couple with another set of beliefs is not. That reform is not possible by only authorising humanist weddings. The Government will carefully consider the Law Commission’s recommendations when the final report is published, and it is right for us to await the outcome of that.
Separately, since July 2021, couples have been able to have their civil marriage and civil partnership proceedings in the open air in the grounds of buildings such as stately homes and hotels that are approved, or become approved, for civil ceremonies. Outdoor ceremonies were made possible because the Government laid a statutory instrument at significant pace when covid was at a peak in order to give couples more choice of settings, and to support the wedding and civil partnership sector. I think all of us would recognise that that was an important step to take in the context of the pandemic when individuals did of course still want to get married and when there were important considerations for businesses up and down the country. That was the right thing to do.
I am proud that couples were given a lifeline to enable them to have some semblance of normality on their big day when there were restrictions in place. Some have said that was an example of piecemeal reform, but that is not the case. It was a measured response to the most significant public health crisis this country has faced, allowing couples and their loved ones to celebrate their special days safely.
One of many venues to have benefited from the statutory instrument was Hodsock Priory, which said:
“Guests love it as it feels romantic and is COVID safe. It’s a positive experience and asset to our venue.”
As the statutory instrument has effect only until 5 April 2022, it is right that we make these changes permanent.
This week, the Government’s consultation on outdoor marriages and civil partnerships closed. The Government are fulfilling their commitment to carry out a full public consultation on outdoor weddings and to lay a further instrument to make the current time-limited changes permanent in spring 2022. This will continue to provide flexibility and choice to couples, venues and the wider wedding industry, in a sector in which almost 75% of all weddings are civil ceremonies and more than 85% of those are held on approved premises—a sector that has been hit hard by the pandemic.
When the Government announced the temporary measures for civil ceremonies in June 2021, they also committed to legislate to enable outdoor religious marriage when parliamentary time allowed. The outdoor marriage and civil partnerships consultation also sought views on the proposal. This proposed reform to religious wedding ceremonies is being considered to maintain parity between couples seeking a civil or religious wedding by providing similar choice and flexibility and allowing such ceremonies to take place outdoors.
Andy Slaughter
I think we are all grateful for the Minister’s sentiments, but I am not sure that we are persuaded by his arguments. Even if we are moving in the right direction, it is going to be another couple of years if we wait for the Law Commission. There is nothing to stop an interim provision, which—if the Minister is concerned about disparities—could limit humanist weddings to approved premises in the same way as civil or religious ceremonies. That would mean that thousands of couples who want to get married and may have been waiting years to do so could go ahead now. It seems unnecessarily harsh to make them wait that length of time, even if the Government do get there in the end.
Tom Pursglove
It is my understanding that humanists can get married by their chosen celebrant on approved premises, but that the superintendent registrar and registrar must be present. To allow that to take place without the superintendent registrar or registrar would require an affirmative statutory instrument, which, by itself, would take around eight months to deliver. It would not be an immediate change.
Andy Slaughter
We have had some experience in the last two years of getting statutory instruments through in rather less than eight months. I am sure it could be rushed through in four.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman will know that I always try to set expectations in the House at a reasonable level. I do not think it is right to set unrealistic expectations about such things. That is the situation, as I understand it, were we to go down the route he advocates.
I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate—I know he will continue to engage with me on these matters, and I will certainly welcome such opportunities—for bringing this important issue to the House’s attention. I wish to reassure him and other hon. Members present that this issue is very much on my radar. The provision of humanist marriages is something that I will carefully consider. However, it needs to be done when the time is right and through proper consideration of all the issues involved. By waiting until the Law Commission provides its recommendations in July 2022, we will have a clear and comprehensive view of the opportunities associated with comprehensive reform to marriage law and options to address the concerns raised during this debate.
As I said at the outset, I am mindful of the strength of feeling in the House on this issue, as well as the strength of feeling among individuals in all our constituencies. My own constituents have written to me about this issue over the last week or so, in advance of the debate, and I am grateful to them for contacting me as their local MP. I am mindful of their strength of feeling. I give the House the undertaking that when the Law Commission produces its report, as the Minister responsible, I will of course want to take a look at it in very short order, progress with these reforms, see what the commission recommends and make informed decisions about how best to proceed.
Crispin Blunt
I thank all hon. Friends and colleagues who have taken part in the debate. I listened to my hon. Friend the Minister with great interest. I am obviously pleased with the positivity he expressed personally around marriage. I made the point in an intervention that I am pretty certain that his is the Government position, as much as it is the position of all the Front Benches in the House.
The statistics the Minister used about what has happened with marriages in England and Wales bear quite interesting analysis if we simply project the Scottish experience on to them. We might need to look at this again, but certainly, about 10,000 couples a year will want to take advantage of the opportunity to have a humanist celebrant conduct the most important service and celebration of the most important legal relationship in their lives. Whereas it might be only 1,400 today, a very large number of people every year are not able to exercise the freedoms that they deserve.
That takes us to the other elements of the Minister’s speech. One could hear the legal drafting that had gone on of the pre-emptive defence of the Government’s position, piecemeal reform having ripped away the defence that was offered against the judgment in the Harrison case in 2020. As my hon. Friend continues his consideration of this area, let us get immediate relief to all the tens of thousands of people who are potentially engaged in this issue before there is conceivably time for primary legislation to be passed to address marriage reform in substance. There are loads of interesting things we can do. We can do the statutory instrument. We know that we can do these things at pace. I cannot see the public policy concerns that we should not get this done for the next two or three years for all those people who want to take advantage of it. We will certainly focus hard on making those arguments for him and his colleagues to consider.
I know how determined my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice will be to get this done in the way that is intended. If we have to wait for the Law Commission response and the Government response, and then for the Government to present primary legislation to Parliament and for Parliament to pass it, an awful lot of people will not be able to exercise the freedoms that he and I should want for them and would support. This really is urgent. It could be done in isolation, before the Law Commission reports, as the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) suggested with respect to approved premises.
I hope that the Minister takes ownership of this matter and enables all the people who want to take advantage of humanist weddings to do so. I look forward to continuing to press these arguments, and to his active consideration of the issue. There is widespread interest, as is made clear by the letter to the Lord Chancellor today signed by so many parliamentary colleagues from both Houses, and by the strength of support for the application for this debate. I believe that the tone of the debate has reflected that, too. I look forward to engaging with the Minister and his colleagues further.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered humanist marriages in England and Wales.
Written Statements
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sizewell C: Update on Negotiations with EDF
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The UK was the first major economy to legislate for a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. As set out in the net zero strategy and the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, nuclear will continue to be an important and reliable source of clean electricity as we strive to decarbonise the UK economy. By 2050, we expect that the electricity system will be built on a foundation of renewables such as wind and solar, but these will need to be bolstered by reliable low-carbon power. The UK Government recognise that large-scale nuclear is the only proven technology available to provide continuous, low-carbon electricity at scale. Ministers are therefore firmly committed to deploying new nuclear in order to strengthen Britain’s energy security and reduce our exposure to volatile global gas prices, provided there is clear value for money for consumers and taxpayers.
In 2016 we took the decision to enter into a contract for difference over Hinkley Point C in Somerset, which is currently under construction and expected to begin generating power by 2026, when it will start providing 3.2 GW of electricity. However, with five of the UK’s six nuclear stations scheduled to close by 2028, the Government have made a commitment to bring a further large-scale nuclear project to a final investment decision during this Parliament, subject to value for money and all relevant approvals. To facilitate this, we have introduced legislation for a new financing mechanism, the regulated asset base (RAB) model, through the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill. It is estimated that RAB could lower the cost of each new large-scale nuclear power project by more than £30 billion, compared to the existing contracts for difference model. The RAB model is also expected to reduce Britain’s reliance on overseas developers for finance by substantially widening the pool of private investors to include British pension funds, insurers and other institutional investors from like-minded countries.
After Hinkley Point C, the Sizewell C project in Suffolk is the most advanced nuclear project in the UK. As a replica of Hinkley Point, Sizewell offers a high level of design maturity and an identified supply chain. The company developing the project has applied for both a development consent order and nuclear site licence and believes it can begin construction during this Parliament. If built, the new plant could deliver around 7% of the UK’s current electricity needs (enough to power the equivalent of around 6 million homes) and create tens of thousands of jobs across the country. New nuclear is not only at the heart of our plans to ensure greater energy independence, but to drive economic growth.
The Government entered into Sizewell C project discussions in January 2021. Following significant investment from EDF, the project requires additional financial support to further mature it to a point where other private investors (and, subject to value for money considerations and relevant approvals, the Government) could consider a direct investment in the project development company. Sufficient early development funding prior to the construction of major projects is a key determinant of subsequent project performance, and to this end the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan committed in 2020 to provide nuclear development funding for this purpose.
I am pleased to announce that I will today enter into an option agreement with EDF Energy Holdings Ltd, which provides Government with an option over the land at Sizewell C and conditionally over the shares in the development company in exchange for an option fee of £100 million. EDF Energy Holdings Ltd will invest that £100 million in further developing the Sizewell C electricity infrastructure project. Should the project reach a successful final investment decision, subject to value for money and all relevant approvals, the Government would recover this funding together with a financing return, either through an equity stake in the project, or in cash.
This agreement represents an important milestone for both the Government’s nuclear strategy and the project, which has the potential to significantly contribute to the UK’s decarbonisation and security of supply objectives. However, I am clear that this agreement does not represent a Government decision that the Sizewell C project will progress. Neither is it an indication that similar commercial arrangements would necessarily be desirable for other prospective nuclear projects. Decisions on the Sizewell C Project will be dependent on decisions in respect of planning and designation under the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill if passed into law.
Noting that the future of the Sizewell C project is not confirmed, the agreement the Government have reached with EDF provides the taxpayer with downside protection should the project not proceed. In return for the £100 million, the Government will be granted an option on the Sizewell site and conditionally over the shares in certain circumstances of the development company. In the event the negotiations with EDF do not successfully result in a positive investment decision satisfactory to all parties, then subject to certain conditions, taxpayers would be entitled to seek acquisition of either EDF’s shares in the Sizewell C development company or the site itself, or if neither can be delivered by EDF, the taxpayer would be entitled to a reimbursement of the £100 million with a financing return. This in turn would provide Government with the possibility of proceeding with alternative nuclear or low-carbon infrastructure, and therefore support the realisation of our net zero objectives.
Today’s announcement further demonstrates our commitment to energy security, investing in our thriving nuclear sector and creating thousands of jobs.
[HCWS562]
Defence Estate: Annington Property Ltd
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
The Ministry of Defence—MOD—continues to review its estate to ensure value for money.
In 1996, the Ministry of Defence, in what was effectively a sale and leaseback agreement, granted a 999-year lease of over 55,000 service family accommodation homes to Annington Property Ltd and immediately leased the homes back on 200-year underleases. In 2018, the National Audit Office concluded in its review of the arrangements that taxpayers are between £2.2 billion and £4.2 billion worse off as a result of the sale and leaseback arrangements.
Given our obligations to secure value for money, we have reviewed the MOD’S current arrangements with Annington and now set out the steps that the MOD is taking to deliver greater value for money for the taxpayer in relation to service family accommodation.
First, the MOD engaged highly experienced advisers and counsel to deliver a settlement with Annington in the site rent review process. This settlement achieves value for money, and removes ongoing uncertainty for the Department; we believe it to be a good outcome and a fair settlement. The settlement resulted in a change in the overall adjustment to open market rents from 58% to 49.6%.
Secondly, the MOD continues to reduce the number of untenanted properties which it holds since these otherwise represent a liability for the taxpayer, by returning these to Annington under the terms of the lease.
Thirdly, the MOD can confirm that the Department will explore the exercise of its statutory leasehold enfranchisement rights to buy out Annington’s interest in the homes and gain full ownership rights. Initially, the MOD has made a single claim for one house, with the intention to submit a further claim in respect of another house in the near future. It is hoped that this test case will establish certain key principles. The cost of enfranchising these houses will be in accordance with the statutory enfranchisement formula, fixed at the date of the notice of claim, and the price will be agreed between the parties or determined by an independent tribunal. If the cost of recovering full ownership of the units from Annington is less than the present value of the MOD’s ongoing liabilities, such a transaction is likely to represent good value for money. The MOD would then benefit from any future appreciation in value of the units. Accordingly, the MOD has served notice on Annington under section 5 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 of its desire to enfranchise a house currently leased from Annington. Annington, through its lawyers, has notified the MOD that it is considering the impact of the claim and has put the MOD on notice of a potential dispute.
A successful enfranchisement programme would also provide the MOD with more flexibility in the management of its estate to the benefit of defence, tenants, and potentially wider Government objectives.
[HCWS563]
OSCE: Ministerial Council and Priorities for 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Chris Heaton-Harris)
My noble Friend the Minister for South and Central Asia, United Nations and the Commonwealth (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) has made the following written ministerial statement:
The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) faced a challenging year in 2021, with geopolitical tensions leading to a failure to reach consensus on a range of important issues. Sweden, as 2021 chair-in-office, steered the organisation through this period with a focus on addressing protracted conflicts, strengthening democracy and enhancing gender equality. The UK worked closely with Sweden, including as chair of the OSCE’s Security Committee, which we have now concluded after two successful years.
On 2 and 3 December, Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde hosted the 28th Ministerial Council meeting of the OSCE in Stockholm. The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), represented the United Kingdom. The Ministerial Council is the key decision-making body of the OSCE and was attended by Ministers and senior officials from across its 57 participating states, including US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
The Council agreed a decision on increasing co-operation to address the challenges of climate change. Due to the positions of certain participating states, there was difficulty in reaching agreement on a number of other valuable decisions, reflecting wider difficulties in reaching consensus. In 2021, the OSCE’s Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Europe’s largest annual human rights and democracy conference, did not take place because we were unable to reach agreement on the agenda.
The Foreign Secretary’s intervention at the Ministerial Council underlined the need for all participating states to respect OSCE commitments. The Foreign Secretary raised concern over the impact of ongoing conflicts on regional stability and the threats facing freedom and democracy across the region, placing a particular emphasis on the importance of the OSCE’s work in election observation.
The Foreign Secretary’s statement also emphasised our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, calling on Russia to use OSCE tools to build trust and live up to their commitments on military transparency. The UK and allies made clear to Russia that its military build-up on the border of Ukraine and in illegally annexed Crimea is unacceptable. We reiterated these points in our closing statement and also regretted Russia’s decision not to renew the mandate of the Border Observation Mission along the Ukraine-Russia state border.
During the ministerial working dinner, the Foreign Secretary led a discussion on conflict resolution focusing on the importance of finding the political will to implement existing tools. She also co-hosted a side event on the human rights situation in Belarus, alongside Denmark and Germany, with 36 co-sponsors. Her Majesty’s ambassador to the OSCE, Neil Bush, represented the UK in a discussion focused on the potential OSCE role in Afghanistan particularly in supporting regional stability.
Poland have taken on the OSCE Chair for 2022 and will face another challenging year, at a particularly tense moment for the region. They plan to prioritise conflict prevention and resolution, with a focus on protection of civilians, and will champion building back better through effective multilateralism.
At the first OSCE Permanent Council in 2022, the UK offered Polish Foreign Minister Rau our full support. Our statement underlined our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s aggressive acts and urged participating states to robustly defend the principles and commitments we signed up to. We also emphasised the importance of the cross-dimensional approach to security, which includes support for democracy and human rights, and called for adequate financing of the OSCE’s autonomous institutions and field missions in the unified budget. As a consensus-based organisation, where all countries in the Euro-Atlantic area are represented and have an equal voice, the OSCE has a unique and valuable role in resolving tensions and avoiding escalation.
In 2022, the UK remains committed to supporting the work of the OSCE. We will focus on conflict prevention and resolution, ensuring in particular that we use the OSCE platform to hold Russia to account for its ongoing aggression in Ukraine. We will continue to work closely with the OSCE chair-in-office, Secretary General Helga Schmid, and other participating states to build an effective organisation which maintains comprehensive security in the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian area.
[HCWS565]
Covid-19: Adult Social Care
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
Thanks to the success of the vaccination booster roll out, and the reducing level of both infection and hospitalisations across the country, the Government have been able to announce the end of plan B. This means we are now able to take steps towards getting care homes back to normal, easing some of the difficult restrictions that both staff and residents have had in place, which I know have been incredibly challenging for all, while still protecting residents from the continued risk of covid-19.
From 31 January, there will no longer be nationally set direct restrictions on visiting in care homes and there will be no limit on the number of visitors a resident can receive. Residents should be supported to undertake visits out of the care home without the need to isolate on their return, but should continue to take reasonable precautions and undertake testing arrangements for high-risk visits.
As well as removing those additional precautions we put in place in response to the omicron variant, we are now able to reduce isolation periods for residents in care homes so that they are the same as for the general public in most cases.
Residents who need to isolate will now only need to do so for a maximum of 10 days. The 10-day maximum period will apply to those residents who test positive, are identified as a close contact or have had an unplanned stay in hospital. For some residents, the isolation period could be as short as five days subject to the testing regime that will be outlined in guidance.
Today I am also announcing changes to regular testing for staff. For all adult social care staff, we are moving to lateral flow testing every day before work and removing weekly PCR testing. Recent clinical advice is that following the pre-shift testing regime provides better protection than the current regular testing regime of weekly PCR with three lateral flow tests a week in high-risk settings.
As restrictions are relaxed for care home residents and for the general population, testing continues to be essential for providing the protections needed to support this relaxation of restrictions. The introduction of pre-shift rapid lateral flow tests should help identify and isolate positive cases quicker rather than waiting for PCR results to return from the lab.
This change applies only to regular asymptomatic testing for staff meaning PCR tests will remain available for symptomatic staff and residents. Outbreak testing and monthly resident testing will also remain unchanged.
By maintaining a robust regime of testing in adult social care, continuing to press ahead with our vaccination programme and maintaining high standards of infection prevention and control, we are able to support residents of care homes and recipients of care to gradually return to enjoying life as it was before the pandemic.
[HCWS566]
NHS Constitution and Handbook
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Statutory report on the effect of the NHS constitution and updates to the constitution handbook
In accordance with the Health Act 2009, I have laid before Parliament a report on the effect of the NHS constitution. The report has also been published on the gov.uk website, alongside an updated version of the handbook to the NHS constitution.
The NHS constitution, like the NHS, belongs to us all. It empowers patients, public and staff by bringing together in one document the founding principles and values of our NHS. It sets out the legal rights to which patients, the public and staff are entitled and the pledges that the NHS has additionally made towards them. Just as importantly, it makes clear the responsibilities which we all have for supporting the NHS to operate fairly and effectively.
Throughout this extraordinary time where we have seen the huge impact of the pandemic on staff, patients and society as a whole, our NHS workforce have strived tirelessly to protect the people we love. It is therefore more important than ever that patients, public and staff know their rights, responsibilities and what they can expect from their NHS.
The report is based on an independent survey of staff, patients and the public. It describes how they view the impact of the NHS constitution, and its value in promoting and raising standards of care.
While the report shows that public awareness of the constitution is still low, we are pleased to see it has increased since the 2018 report, and staff awareness remains significantly higher than public awareness. We know that those informed about the NHS constitution are more likely to use it and so there is further work to do in improving awareness to ensure we all get the most out of our interactions with the NHS.
Looking forward, a full review of the NHS constitution itself is due in January 2025. The scoping for this review, including a statutory consultation with patients, carers and staff will begin this year. We will use the findings from today’s report to shape the consultation and explore how to increase awareness and use of the NHS constitution across all public and staff groups.
Alongside this report we have also published a revised version of the handbook to the constitution. The handbook explains each right, pledge and responsibility in the NHS constitution. It is designed to give the public, patients, their carers and families, and NHS staff fuller information about what the constitution means for them. This revision ensures the information given in the handbook remains accurate and up to date.
[HCWS564]
UK-Greenland Free Trade Agreement Negotiations
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The United Kingdom has today launched negotiations with the Government of Greenland on a continuity free trade agreement to reduce the costs of trading and to identify areas of strategic interest for future co-operation. While we introduced temporary measures to secure some continuity of trade with Greenland at the beginning of 2021, we never closed the door to securing a more permanent arrangement at an appropriate time.
These negotiations will seek to ensure that British firms can once again import popular products from Greenland tariff free. This will also support processing industries in Scotland, the north-east and north-west of England. As Greenland is the largest supplier of cold-water prawns in the world, as well as being a leading source of fish, these negotiations will help ensure the stability and resilience of British supply chains for consumers and the hospitality sector. The negotiations will also lay the groundwork for potentially tackling market access barriers for British businesses in Greenland in the longer term, including by liberalising professional business services trade, facilitating inward investment, and agreeing mutual recognition and double taxation arrangements. These discussions will therefore pave the way to potentially unlocking significant new opportunities for British exporters and investors looking to extend their presence across the Arctic.
Additionally, Greenland is an important partner in the Arctic—an increasingly important geopolitical area. These negotiations provide an opportunity to establish a dialogue through which to broaden our co-operation with Greenland on our priorities, such as climate change, science and research, and potentially the supply of critical minerals.
As the Arctic continues to grow in strategic importance, Greenland will be a key partner in ensuring a secure, stable, and sustainable future for the region.
In parallel, we expect the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to enter into negotiations with Greenland on our access to Greenlandic fishing waters.
This agreement will constitute Greenland’s first bilateral agreement with a third partner country, and we look forward to using this opportunity to solidify and strengthen our trading relationship in the future.
We will ensure Parliament is regularly updated on the progress of these negotiations.
[HCWS567]
Grand Committee
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
My Lords, members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill
Thursday 27th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill 2021-22 View all Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 January 2022 - (12 Jan 2022)
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel
That the Grand Committee do consider the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill before Second Reading.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to open this debate on an important piece of legislation. The primary purpose of this Bill is to support commercial tenants and landlords in resolving outstanding rent debt accrued during the Covid-19 pandemic.
As noble Lords know, the pandemic has brought forward unprecedented challenges. Many difficult decisions have been made in the interest of protecting public health, including the mandated closure of businesses. These closures have had immense impacts across the economy. Sectors such as hospitality, leisure and non-essential retail have been subject to significant restrictions and closures. Certain businesses, particularly in the night-time economy, were mandated to close for over 15 consecutive months.
Minimising the economic damage caused by the pandemic has been a key aim for this Government. To that end, the Government put in place an economic package of support which provided businesses and individuals with certainty. Since the start of the pandemic, the cumulative cost to the Government has been £400 billion. Measures introduced include loan schemes, grant funding, tax deferrals and the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, all of which were designed to be accessible to businesses in most sectors and across the UK.
The Government also introduced several temporary measures that have helped commercial tenants. These measures have prevented the eviction of commercial tenants based on unpaid rent, restricted landlords’ ability to seize goods to recover rent owed, and restricted landlords and other creditors from instigating certain insolvency proceedings. These protections have been in place since March 2020 and have been extended to late March 2022 in order to allow time for Parliament to consider the legislation before us. While the protections have succeeded in their aim of minimising insolvencies and job losses, they have also led to commercial tenants building up a significant amount of unpaid rent debt. An estimated £6.97 billion in rent was deferred over the course of the pandemic.
The Government have therefore worked alongside tenants and landlords to develop a code of practice for the commercial property sector. That code was published in June 2020 to support rental negotiations amidst these temporary measures. Of course, it has always been the Government’s preference that landlords and tenants negotiate and come to agreements on rent independently and openly. An updated version of the code was published alongside the Bill’s introduction to the other place, and it has been really encouraging to see that many landlords and tenants have used the code to reach settlements.
As was heard in the oral evidence sessions in the other place, the anticipation of this Bill coming into force has encouraged even more landlords and tenants to come to an agreement. However, there are still tenants and landlords who have been unable to reach agreement. It is estimated that by March 2022 there will still be more than £1.5 billion in deferred rent that will not have been agreed on. As such, multiple businesses and jobs continue to face the threat of insolvency as a result of this rent debt. Without this Bill in place, the measures protecting tenants will expire before the end of March, leaving commercial tenants in the sectors covered by the legislation vulnerable to evictions and insolvency proceedings.
Importantly, the Bill is not one-sided. Landlords, too, have also incurred significant financial losses as a result of the pandemic. We are aware of several high-profile tenants who have refused to pay rent despite being able to do so, and many landlords have been unable to recover rent from—let us describe them as “reticent”—tenants. Through this Bill, the Government seek to support commercial tenants who were required to close, and their landlords. This will ultimately allow the commercial property sector to transition away from these temporary measures and return to normal market conditions.
I shall give a quick overview of the Bill. It introduces a system of binding arbitration that will act as a backstop for certain tenants and landlords who have been unable to come to an agreement on outstanding rent debt. We initially estimated that around 50,000 firms would be eligible for the arbitration scheme; this number excludes parties that have already reached agreement. However, it is very positive that it is now estimated that of those 50,000 firms, only around 7,500 cases are left that will go through the arbitration scheme. We will continue to encourage parties to negotiate in the first instance wherever possible. I should stress that it is important to note that these figures are only estimations, as outlined in the impact assessment that was published alongside the introduction of the Bill.
The introductory provisions of the Bill are set out in Clauses 1 to 6. These include the definition of rent debt, the businesses that are in scope for arbitration and the specific period in respect of which rent debt is protected. The decision to apply the Bill to businesses that were mandated to close ensures that this support is targeted to those that require it most. These businesses are among those hardest hit by the pandemic. Although they have been able to resume trading without restrictions, many of them have historically low profit margins and minimal cash reserves.
To show the extent of the problem, during the first period of restrictions, the average rent collection dropped to around 38% at the due date, and 51% at seven days past the due date. The lowest collection rates were seen in leisure and retail, which had rates of 26% and 46% respectively at seven days past the due date. By quarter 4 of 2021, these rates had risen. Rent collection had improved to 61% for the leisure sector, up from 26%, and 70% for retail, up from 46%, at seven days past the due date. I am reassured that businesses are showing signs of recovery. However, expecting businesses to be able to pay rent debt accumulated over the pandemic in a one-off payment would in many cases be unreasonable.
The “protected period” for rent debt will differ depending on the business and will end on the date the business last faced closure or restrictions on how to operate. This period, at its lengthiest, runs from 21 March 2020 until 18 July 2021 in England and until 7 August 2021 in Wales.
The bulk of the provisions in this Bill set out the parameters of the binding arbitration scheme. To ensure that the scheme gives rise to speedy resolutions, tenants and landlords will have a period of six months to refer a case to arbitration, beginning when the Bill comes into force. Alongside a referral to arbitration, the applicant will be required to put forward a proposal for resolving the matter of relief from payment of protected rent debt.
The Secretary of State will approve the arbitration bodies that he considers suitable and capable of delivering the scheme. These arbitration bodies will then maintain a list of suitable arbitrators that are available to act and appoint arbitrators to each case. Arbitrators will review the proposals and any supporting evidence to determine whether the dispute is eligible for arbitration under the scheme and, if so, whether any relief from payment of the debt is appropriate. This relief may take the form of a reduction to the total debt, cancellation of the debt, or an extension to the repayment period of the debt. The arbitrator will consider financial records and any other evidence considered appropriate to assess the viability of a business or the solvency of a landlord. The arbitrator will make an award and, if granting relief from payment of a protected rent debt is appropriate, the award will set out the terms of that relief. These awards will then be published, which will help set market expectations and aid negotiations outside of the arbitration scheme. So the scheme will be transparent in its operation.
The arbitrator will base their award on a set of clear and proportionate principles, which we have considered carefully. These principles are set out in Clause 15 and make it clear that preserving viable businesses is a key aim of the scheme, but that the preservation of a tenant’s business should not come at the expense of a landlord’s solvency. The principles provide that any relief given should be no greater than necessary and that any tenant who is able to pay should do so. The arbitrator must follow these principles when making their award. Only viable businesses, or those that would become viable with an award of relief from payment, will be eligible for arbitration. For example, a business could be granted an award that reduced the amount of debt owed if that reduction would allow it to become viable again.
In this way, we are actively supporting businesses that will continue to prosper and grow, will provide jobs, and will support the UK to build back better. As your Lordships will have expected, we have engaged with arbitration bodies to develop this approach, and I am confident that it will deliver swift resolution for tenants and landlords locked in disputes.
As I mentioned earlier, only rent debt attributable to a specific period will be eligible for arbitration. This rent debt will continue to be protected for the six-month application period and then up until the end of the arbitration proceedings.
The protections afforded to this rent debt are contained in Clauses 23 to 26. These include a targeted continuation of existing restrictions, such as the moratorium on the eviction of commercial tenants, the restriction on landlords’ ability to seize goods in lieu of unpaid rent and restrictions on issuing winding-up petitions against commercial tenants. This ensures that parties who cannot come to an agreement will have a genuine opportunity to apply to arbitration before landlords will once again be able to resort to other legal remedies. I am confident that this six-month period is enough time to allow tenants and landlords to apply to the scheme. However, if there is evidence that this period is not long enough, the Bill allows for the application period to be extended.
The Government have engaged extensively with tenants, landlords and arbitration bodies throughout the development of this Bill. The policy contained in it has been rigorously tested with key stakeholders. A call for evidence was launched in April 2021, which gathered the views of tenants and landlords on the temporary measures, the state of rent negotiations and the preferred exit options for the temporary measures. The feedback from that call for evidence made it clear that the voluntary nature of the code of practice was hindering negotiations and that a statutory solution was required. Nearly half of respondents—49.2%, to be precise—were in favour of binding adjudication, and only 27.4% were against this proposal.
Since the call for evidence concluded, we have continued to work closely with tenant and landlord representatives, as well as arbitration bodies, to help shape this legislation and support negotiations. My colleague the Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Labour Markets, Paul Scully, has met regularly with tenant and landlord representatives to discuss these proposals and the issue of rent debt in the affected sectors. I am grateful to the bodies representing commercial tenants, landlords and arbitrators which have taken the time to provide feedback. They have recognised the efforts that the Government are making to encourage continued negotiations and the value of establishing a system in the event that negotiations fail.
I held a drop-in session yesterday, and thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Shipley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for their time and interest. I look forward to working again with the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, with whom I worked on the Professional Qualifications Bill. I hope to be pleased to hear of their support for this Bill and warmly welcome their constructive scrutiny as we discuss it in more depth.
To conclude, the Bill brings forward a solution that should be used only when parties are unable to reach agreement between themselves. The Government’s position continues to be that tenants and landlords should negotiate where possible. The protections put in place by the Government during the pandemic have offered much-needed respite for businesses fearing insolvency. However, these measures must come to an end. This Bill will facilitate an exit from these temporary protections and support the resolution of unpaid rent debt that is preventing commercial tenants and landlords from recovering. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I first remind the Committee that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association—I do so because local authorities can have a substantial role as commercial landlords. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to the Bill and for his meeting yesterday with Peers who have an interest in the Bill to discuss its details. I like the opportunity afforded by this new system for debate; it is a most welcome change.
I welcome the Bill itself because it addresses the need to minimise bankruptcies of tenants and landlords. Many businesses have been kept afloat by reductions in their costs while closed during the pandemic, which have been important contributions by the Government to supporting those businesses. Many are viable businesses that simply need time to recover. However, as temporary protections for tenants are reduced, it is vital that the recovery of those businesses is not put in jeopardy by the actions of landlords. That said, landlords have not received £1 in every £6 that they should have over the last two years.
The Bill seems to balance the needs of landlords and tenants fairly. Binding arbitration clearly has very substantial support and seems the best way to proceed for businesses forced to close. A balance has been struck between the needs of landlords and the needs of tenants which should significantly reduce closures which are not in the interest of consumers or landlords. I am thinking here of the importance of the Bill to the retail sector and the high street, which needs all the support it can get. Empty shops just make the physical retail offer less attractive and will lead to even greater dependency on internet shopping.
I move to some specific questions on clauses that the Minister may be able to respond to today—if not, later in writing, if that helps. In Clause 2 there is mention of interest rates payable. My question relates to the levels of interest payable on unpaid rents and what controls the Government are planning, if any, on excessive rent charges. How are those to be prevented?
In Clause 9, there is a requirement to refer a dispute for arbitration within six months of the Bill passing—the Minister referred to this figure. Longer than six months may prove necessary, but I accept that the Government have built in a means of addressing that problem should it arise. In that context, does the Minister feel that there are enough arbitrators to meet the demand that is likely to be forthcoming? It is estimated that 7,500 businesses could need arbitration because there has been no resolution of the stand-off between the landlord and tenant directly. That is a large number; therefore, there is a question of capacity within the system as a whole.
On Clause 13, is the Minister satisfied that there are enough protections in place to ensure that an error is not made by an arbitrator on the viability of a business? I refer to alleged errors of judgment by arbitrators and whether they can be challenged by a tenant or whether they simply cannot be challenged at all, even with recourse to the law. I can foresee articles being printed in the press complaining about the actions of arbitrators where they are deemed to have made an unfair decision about the viability of a business. I recognise that these are difficult and sometimes complex issues, and there are issues of commercial confidentiality as well. Nevertheless, I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that in the defining of viability by an arbitrator, the rights of the tenant are protected.
Clause 14 requires rent debt to be paid within 24 months of a decision. I am not sure that that is long enough. It may be in most cases, but it may not be enough for a business which is viable but on the margins and which would benefit from a longer time period. How fixed is that 24 months in Clause 14?
I say in passing that I welcome Clause 27, which will enable the Secretary of State to apply the provisions of the Bill to business tenants forced to close by future coronavirus restrictions. It is wise that the Government are proposing to use the affirmative procedure. Clause 27 is very important.
I have two further issues, as I draw to a close. The first relates to case law, because there is going to be a great deal of new case law. The Minister referred to transparency in the operation of the Bill, and I welcome that intention. I am not quite clear how, with all the new case law that is established by all the binding arbitration, there will be a system in place to ensure that binding decision-making reflects that body of case law. Is it the Government’s assumption that there will not be any new case law? With 7,500 cases all being heard over a comparatively short period, how are we going to ensure that a decision made in one place by an arbitrator is actually similar to a decision made somewhere else by a different arbitrator?
These are imperfect systems—I fully understand that —but nevertheless I am not quite clear on the extent to which decisions and the reasons for them can be shared publicly for other arbitrators or the general public as a whole to see. I recognise that there are issues around commercial confidentiality, but are the Government satisfied that enough is going to be published about the reasons for decision for awards that are being made?
Can I just double-check the issue of fee levels with the Minister? This Bill is about businesses on the brink. Fee levels for binding arbitration will be important for a tenant. I hope that the Government have in place means of ensuring that fee levels will not be excessive.
The Minister has explained the context. The Government have taken a whole set of temporary measures to support businesses over the last two years, which I have welcomed, but the problems that we now face are, first, with the business rates system, worth £25 billion a year to the Treasury. It is expensive, and I read in the press that there is a stand-off between the Department for Levelling Up and the Treasury about whether retail premises on high streets in particular should, for a period at least, pay no business rates.
There is a huge problem then for local government, because income from business rates really matters. We do not have the right level of discussion about some of those big strategic issues, and I am not sure that it is something that can be dealt with by only one political party. That said, there is a business rate context; for many businesses on the brink, business rates really matter, but they are also facing rises in general inflation and rising energy costs. What this Bill does can actually help mitigate some of the cost pressures that viable businesses currently face.
I welcome this Bill, which is a huge step forward. The Government have protected themselves by enabling themselves, through the negative or affirmative procedure, to make changes to it—but I welcome it, and I commend what the Government are attempting to do.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate this Bill—I apologise, I may be standing too close to the microphone; it is my stentorian tones. In making my initial comments, I refer to my interests as a practising chartered surveyor and my association with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, although I do not practise as an arbitrator—and last but not least as a private landlord of let commercial property, although I do not have any rental or arrears issues. However, I do have a working knowledge of commercial landlord and tenant matters.
I thank the Minister for holding the briefing session yesterday and for his introduction today, and I acknowledge straightaway that the Government have made a necessary move to deal with an extreme set of circumstances surrounding suspension of business during parts of the pandemic and the accrual of rent arrears, as we have heard. So I agree that this is essential. After all, keeping tenancies going, as opposed to having occupational voids, is straightforward economic common sense. Like all such pieces of legislation, it is a typically blunt instrument of last resort, but I note that the threat it poses already seems to have concentrated some minds, and the estimate of some 7,500 cases is certainly less than I feared was the case.
Although I note that arbitration was the majority method of determination in response to the call for evidence, it certainly is not free from issues of its own and is not necessarily cheap, quick or, if appealed under the limited grounds under the arbitration Act, final. Good adjudication comes at a cost, and my sense is that the department may be underestimating this. The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators tells me that it has a budget package for written representation-only cases involving claims of between £5,000 and £100,000 and exclusive of the parties’ own costs. That is priced at £3,000 per case, split between the parties, and turned round in circa 89 days. But actual costs may vary substantially because of the actions of the parties themselves, and can easily be escalated. I must say that the proposed timeline in the Bill is, to my mind, tight.
In the absence of a contractual agreement to refer—and, potentially, of any party agreement of any sort—running up to arbitration under the Bill, I would suggest that some default terms of reference will be required and that minimum standards of information from the parties be specified. I am not sure that the Bill actually achieves this.
I have already raised with the Minister what I see as an asymmetrical approach based on tenant viability on the one hand and landlord insolvency on the other. These are not the same and, in my opinion, it would be difficult for an arbitrator to compare those on a truly like-for-like basis. From the various documents it is hard to identify, for instance, just exactly what critical change to a landlord’s circumstances as between, say, extended borrowing or actual insolvency, is intended to form the relevant line in the sand for the purposes of the Bill, so I hope that that can be clarified. One cannot necessarily assume that either landlords or tenants will be in the stronger position, so this needs a fair balance, bearing in mind that many landlords may be private individuals with one or two pension pot properties, just as tenants may be sole traders.
I am concerned, as is the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the principle of viability as it applies to tenant businesses and how that can be assessed in practice. I believe a number of eminent bodies also have concerns about this. The revised code is singularly uninformative and the Bill a fairly minimal checklist. In early years, a business may be technically unviable or depend on personal good will until it has sufficient trading under its belt to be objectively seen as solvent. That is a normal risk. The arbitrator, at a cost to somebody or other, would have to make an initial decision on viability before proceeding to the issue of rental liability and what should actually be paid. I would be concerned if this Bill were itself to create perverse incentives, and I ask the Minister what safeguards will exist to ensure objective viability tests and monitor fair balance in outcomes.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in a magisterial presentation, referred to the question of arbitral precedent, and I agree with him. The circumstances here are rather specific: it is not very normal to be looking into a tenant’s viability. I am aware that there is some experience of dealing with things like turnover rents but again, that is a rather different algorithm.
Any perceived imbalance may reinforce trends. I take the point the Minister made about returning, hopefully, to normal business, but I am not sure that there is such a thing. Landlord and tenant businesses can in future expect much greater scrutiny of management culture, lettings policy, trading viability and financial status now that their risk profiles and proclivities will be more apparent. Consequential investor, lessor and lessee nervousness may well be the result, especially if, as noted by British Property Federation, this sets a precedent for future “step-in” powers. As the BPF also observes, this is not just some limited category of landlord and tenant who may suffer varying degrees of loss, both financial and of confidence, as a result of emergency measures; it is pension funds, local authorities —referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley —individual investors and entrepreneurs, charities, the vitality of high streets, consumer choice and convenience: in other words, all of us.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the bigger picture, and I relate to what he said. Looking at these things in an overarching policy balance is extremely important.
To a slightly more specific point, one question raised with me is whether rent arrears agreements already reached voluntarily, whether under threat of these sanctions or not, could be reopened and made subject to the Bill’s arbitration provisions. My working assumption is not, but the applicable degree of finality in that respect needs to be spelled out unless 7,500 is going to become some rather larger figure.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I am not reassured about arbitral capacity in the property sector. It is not just a matter of signing up new arbitrators or rolling out existing ones but of how many have adequate experience in the commercial landlord and tenant sector. I am not sure that experience of
“business finances and commercial negotiations”
referred to in the code represents the complete skill set needed, so I would appreciate further and better information on this because the objectives of the Bill depend on the window of opportunity of six months and delivery in fairly short order.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors—RICS—believes this Bill inadvertently may make arbitrator appointing bodies responsible for the oversight of arbitrators, their conduct and their fitness. If correct, I sense that that might run counter to the provisions in the Arbitration Act 1996 relating to arbitrator autonomy and powers. More particularly, it could also create liabilities for the appointing body, increase costs and slow the process, always assuming the bodies are willing or legally able to take responsibility.
RICS also raises the pertinent point that arbitrators should be required to be free of conflicts of interest. I was once accused of bias because “Everyone knows that chartered surveyors always act for landlords.” I suppose in part, because I have in the past acted for both landlords and tenants, I am guilty as charged, but that points out that it is as much the perception of bias and resultant confidence in arbitrator impartiality that matter as opposed to actual conflicts of interest. Furthermore, most cases of appointments by appointing bodies rely on arbitrator self-disclosure of any conflict of interest, so I think the point is valid.
Nearly finally, although I appreciate that this ship may have sailed, I particularly dislike the conflation of rack rent and service charges as rent for the purposes of arbitration under the Bill. I do not believe that that merging proposal was made clear from the outset. It is one thing to be deprived of the rent but another thing altogether to be liable for the services related to use and occupation that are an on-cost payable to a third party and with no possibility of relief. The Government should reconsider that because different considerations apply within the stated global definition of rent.
That said, I appreciate the need for the Bill to complete its passage speedily but hope that I may have some answers to these points.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I do not think I have spoken in a debate before Second Reading in the Moses Room before and I do not think I have spoken when the department staff almost outnumber the speakers, which probably points out why we are in the Moses Room.
Many of the issues I am going to cover have already been covered by previous speakers. I am quite relieved about that. Given the vast experience in local government of one speaker and the experience in the property market of the other speaker, I am rather glad that I am covering some of the same ground, because we appear to be in the right place.
Covid has shocked the commercial lives of our villages, towns and cities across the country. As we have heard, the Bill is designed to help deal with one of the big aftershocks, rent debt. The Minister said earlier that there is £6 billion of rent debt. To put this into context, all town centres and high streets have been hit, but businesses with physical premises—bricks and mortar—tend to have suffered the most. For example, some shops have lost close to one year’s trading in value terms over the course of the Covid pandemic.
I am sure the Government will say that help has been on hand on during this process, which it was, but, meanwhile, as we have heard, rent has been accruing, Covid loans will soon need to be repaid and there is much catching-up to be done. It should be noted that the Covid shock has come on top of other difficulties that already make trading hard. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, alluded to some, as did my noble friend. They include supply chain issues, difficulties hiring and retaining employees, wage inflation and energy costs. So this Bill is welcome, and the Minister will be pleased to know that we will be more in lock-step than we were during the previous Bill on which we worked together.
The Bill is important not least because a lot is staked on the way businesses develop going forward. Communities will be deprived of their focal points and their services if we get this wrong. Local jobs will go, and a deprivation spiral will sink further. The Minister set out the number of businesses that are currently in arrears—some 60%—which is falling, but what is the geographical breakdown? While “only” 40% of leisure businesses are still in arrears, are they focused in particular communities? My suspicion is that they are, so the concentration of damage will be higher in some areas than in others. Frankly, they will be the areas that have already experienced more problems. This is really important, and it is coming at a time when we are all being urged by the Government to reopen our economy.
As set out, there is a balance to be established between the needs of tenants and those of landlords. As has been said, it is in nobody’s interest for great holes to open up across real estate. It is right that we should remember that not all landlords are large corporates. They are private individuals or small firms and, as my noble friend Lord Shipley pointed out, in many cases they are local authorities, which are quite big players in some communities. When the Minister kindly met me, he spoke about consultation. I should have asked whether local authorities have been explicitly consulted on this issue. I would appreciate an answer to that.
When it comes to striking a balance, we support binding arbitration as a way forward. Therefore, the role of the arbitrator will be crucial, and we heard comments along those lines. The Minister told us that he has consulted bodies which will serve up the necessary arbitrators and said that they are satisfied with the way this Bill is going. Although the Minister reported that they are confident that this process will be doable—I do not know whether it is straightforward—I echo some of the comments made on the complications. Not only will there need to be an assessment of what has been lost, which should be a relatively straightforward calculation, but there needs to be a reasonable sense of business prospects. This is a much harder call. That is not only because of the hardening business environment that I have just described but because consumer and work habits have changed. We do not know to what extent these changes are permanent and how they will develop, but we do know that those changes will influence the trading prospects of many of the businesses that will come up for discussion. The definition of “viable business” will by no means be clear-cut in a lot of cases. That has already been pointed out. My noble friend asked about challenging a ruling on the viability of a business, which I think will be an issue that rears its head. How will the department support arbitrators in the definition of “viable business”?
The next point is around the source and supply of arbitrators, which both noble Lords spoke to. It is not clear yet how many arbitrators the Minister believes are necessary, assuming the 7,500 figure is a reasonable estimate. Has that number been matched with the available people? Furthermore, what is the plan for quality control and training of these people? This comes to the point made by the previous speaker. This is a different situation and role. It is a national role, and we want to see equivalent quality across the country.
Does the department have some outreach plan to make sure that the arbitrators are working from the same statistics, for example, inflation estimates? If one arbitrator is using inflation estimates of one level and another is using a different one, their outcomes will necessarily be different. How will they be kept in line? That is just one area.
The Minister outlined that, using the code, we hope there will be a diminishing need for arbitration. In a sense, as he set out, the main purpose of this Bill is to put something in place that will not be used too often. He called it a “backstop”, a term which I was going to suggest, so we are in line on that one. Its presence will hopefully act as an incentive, as we have heard, to drive prior agreement before arbitration is called on. The access process for triggering arbitration is not completely clear to me. I might have missed it in some of the guidelines, but it would be helpful if the Minister could outline how, if I am a landlord or a suffering tenant, that process is triggered.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I have concerns about asymmetry. We discussed this when we met. When you have a big landlord and a small tenant, there is a clear opportunity for a mismatch. The Minister was clear when we met that the low cost of entry should prevent this being an issue, but can he explain how other costs will be controlled? How will the ancillary costs of preparing one’s case be limited? It is quite clear that a corporation with a large chequebook has much more firepower in preparing its case for the arbitrator than a small sole trader. Of course, sometimes the mismatch is in the opposite direction. It is not just the cost of entry but the cost of preparing one’s defence or offence in the arbitration process.
Assuming that the Government are successful in maintaining this low-cost, symmetrical situation, how will they communicate the availability of this process to landlords and tenants across the country? What is the communication plan sitting underneath all this?
I do not expect subsequent stages to be long, but I will set out a few questions it would be helpful to answer. What consultation has there been with local authorities? Are sufficient arbitrators available? What modelling has been done and what training and quality control process is sitting under this? Can the Minister remind your Lordships what constitutes an arbitrator? In our meeting he mentioned country solicitors. On reflection afterwards, a reg flag went up, given country solicitors I have known. Are changes planned in the arbitration accreditation process to acknowledge the new nature of this role? Will there be ongoing communication with arbitrators—for example, providing them with not just data and results but case studies of how those results arose, as a previous speaker mentioned—or are they effectively on their own, inventing it every time? What is the process for triggering arbitration? How will the Government go about communicating all this to tenants and landlords?
Even if this Bill is successful and the number of bankruptcies is reduced, there is going to be a waterfall of bankruptcies in our towns, cities and villages across the country. As well as this—and I would like the Minister to acknowledge it—there is other work to be done in maintaining local economies, particularly in the most underprivileged and least well-off areas. This Bill will not be sufficient to keep our way of life running in some parts of the country.
I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the Minister’s response to these speeches.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Following the example of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I also declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA, and I thank him for that reminder.
I am very pleased to be able to contribute to this important legislation today. When I think back to this time last year, I was still the leader of Leeds City Council, and the issues that we are talking about today are so real to me—all those horrific debates and discussions with the Cabinet Office and No. 10 about which tier of restrictions we were going into, knowing what the implications of those decisions, often made with less than 24 hours’ notice, would be for local businesses and communities. Of course, there was the perverse situation that, for some businesses, it was better to go into a higher tier, because they would be mandated to close and therefore would get more protection than businesses that were not covered and had to try to make awful decisions about whether to keep trading or struggle on, and all those things.
So I come to this with a very raw, first-hand experience of understanding what businesses and landlords have been through, and the decisions that they have had to take over the past two years. Of course, we are talking about the trauma of financial loss and potential bankruptcy, but we should not underestimate the real personal cost that this has put on individuals responsible not only for their own families but for those of their employees in the decisions that they have made.
I, too, echo the concern expressed in this debate about the future role of local authorities, because they have mostly had responsibility for helping businesses and communities through the past two years—and their knowledge of all the issues that we have raised is going to be invaluable in making sure that we can move this forward. Then there is the whole issue of how we can ensure that decisions made through this process actually contribute to the levelling-up agenda. That needs to all be put together in the round.
All of us who have spoken have recognised and acknowledged the need for fairness in the process, and I think that is going to lead to future scrutiny and challenge as the scheme unfolds. I am sure that we all agree that our aim here today and in the ongoing discussions is to ensure that the proposals are effective and accessible—and we have had some discussions about accessibility and sharing information about availability of support. As I have said, most important is how we fairly balance the interests of all relevant parties.
The main principle must be, as we have heard, that no otherwise viable business should face significant burden from rent arrears without a due arbitration and burden-sharing process. Likewise, commercial landlords must have access to clear mechanisms by which to recoup appropriate levels of arrears. Again, the issue that we are facing is around the long-term interests of British businesses, and some of those judgments and decisions around viability are going to be extremely difficult. But of course, all of us are concerned with protecting livelihoods and employment, acknowledging the real difficulties that have been suffered over the past two years.
I emphasise that we have to recognise the context in which we are working. As well as the impacts we have had over the last two years—it is hard to believe we are almost coming up to the second anniversary of the first lockdown—businesses are facing major challenges in the weeks and months ahead. They include the pressures from inflation, the energy crisis and dramatic increases in fuel costs, the proposed hike in national insurance contributions, and the supply chain crises, to name but a few. That is why we on our side are focusing on additional steps to help businesses and bring forward plans to deal with the long-standing problems facing them, particularly around the vexed issue of business rates, and why we have announced a major package of measures to tackle the mess that surrounds the whole business rates agenda. This matters, and these debates will have a profound influence on how high streets, for example—it is not limited to them alone, although they do get repeated mentions—will be able to emerge on the other side of the recovery.
Debate in the other House specifically on the Bill has sought to achieve greater clarity and fleshing out the detail. As we have heard repeatedly today on the basic definition of “viable” in this context, and to echo the comments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, how can we ensure that it is clear and appropriate in scope?
We have stressed a great deal the question of whether we are confident about the basis for the arbitration agreements. How can we ensure that constituency of approach and delivery will be guaranteed, and how will any such inconsistencies be dealt with? How can we be sure that the fees charged are consistent and not excessive? A specific question: will there be a cap on fees? I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that. Another question has been raised repeatedly: is there enough capacity in the sector to cope with the demand and—crucially in this context—to prevent further delays?
The date of retrospectively prohibiting court judgments only from 10 November is a case in point that we have to be mindful of. Evidence from the various interested parties outlines the huge ongoing burden that businesses have been facing. The impact assessment from the Treasury notes that the total amount of deferred rent liabilities could be around £9 billion by March. There has been enough delay, and we recognise the urgency of putting the right provisions in place.
We also recognise a welcome move in that many landlords and businesses have been able to reach agreement and have settled their liabilities. I make reference as well to the code of practice from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and to how that has contributed. However, the uncertainty with regard to coronavirus restrictions in the run-up to Christmas—whether there would be any and what they would be—had a further devastating impact for many, especially across retail, hospitality, cultural venues and many more. With debts high as a result, further costs around arbitration become even more relevant. With the levels of uncertainty facing businesses and landlords going forward, surely it would be sensible to have a mechanism to keep progress under review. Is this an area where the Minister could also provide answers for us?
I look forward to the Minister’s closing comments and particularly to hearing where we have scope to add improvements to the Bill.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their insightful contributions to today’s debate. We have heard four speeches, all of which were eloquently delivered. The number of speeches was small but they were rich in content, and I congratulate noble Lords on that. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their constructive approach to this important legislation and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for the welcome they gave the Bill.
Many issues have been thoughtfully raised, and I will address as many as I can now. On some of the detailed points, I shall write to noble Lords, and I am sure we will come back to them in Committee. That will include the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about interest and by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about service charges and whether it is appropriate to include them in the award. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about geographical distribution, and I will find out all I can about that and write to him. I can confirm that the consultation on the Bill covered local authorities and their bodies.
I quickly remind noble Lords of what this Bill signifies and what it will achieve. Businesses which could not pay their rent due to the impacts of the pandemic have rightly been protected from evictions, seizure of goods and certain insolvency proceedings. As I said earlier, these businesses have now built up a significant amount of rent debt. I know that noble Lords welcome the fact that many tenants and landlords have been able to have open, transparent conversations, and I am thankful to those willing to be flexible when negotiating on unpaid rent. However, we have heard of plenty of cases where negotiation has been unsuccessful and agreement has not been reached. The Bill’s binding arbitration scheme is a proportionate and carefully crafted solution to these cases. It will provide the commercial tenants who need it the most and their landlords with the clarity and certainty they need to plan ahead and recover from the pandemic. In this way, the Bill will protect jobs—the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, is particularly concerned about the impact on society and jobs that we have seen during the dreadful pandemic—and, we hope, will enable a swift return to normal market conditions.
The noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Fox, asked about the capacity of arbitrators to undertake this work and whether there would be sufficient arbitrators. I reassure noble Lords that we have worked closely with arbitration bodies during the development of the arbitration system. The application process which will permit an arbitration body to be included in the list of approved bodies will require it to evidence its capacity. We will not just take it for granted; it will be considered carefully before an arbitration body is admitted to the approved list. However, I believe our market-based approach of allowing arbitration bodies to set fees will ensure that on the one hand there is enough arbitrator capacity and on the other hand that the scheme is affordable.
On the autonomy of arbitrators, the Arbitration Act guarantees it. We can come back to that again in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked how the viability test would be applied. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, is also interested in this. That is probably best dealt with when are in Committee, where we can go through it in detail. I undertake to do that. The assessment of viability and solvency undertaken by arbitrators is an important step in determining whether relief from payment of rent debt should be granted. I think professional arbitrators will be able to do that. I do not want to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about whether country solicitors are capable, but I assure him that someone who is not capable of being the appropriate arbitrator would not be put forward by the arbitration body. I am sure that neither of us would want the wrath of country solicitors to come down on our heads.
Lord Fox (LD)
As a point of information, it was the Minister who brought up country solicitors rather than me. Coming from the country, I need to be careful.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I am constantly amazed by the noble Lord’s wit in these debates.
I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that these principles will ensure that the Bill supports businesses that will continue to prosper and contribute to our economy while protecting landlords.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that we will certainly come back in Committee to how the solvency tests will work. I will write with further details of that.
Noble Lords asked about the monitoring of arbitrators to ensure that they apply the principles consistently. First and foremost, arbitration bodies will appoint only arbitrators that are considered suitable to carry out the arbitration as set out in this Bill. An arbitration body also has the power to oversee any arbitration in relation to which it has appointed an arbitrator. So the arbitration bodies are in the front line of ensuring the quality of the arbitrators who will operate under the Bill.
The Secretary of State can request a report from approved arbitration bodies covering the exercise of their functions under this Bill. This report can include details on awards made and the application of the principles set out in the Bill to arbitration that they have overseen.
Noble Lords rightly asked about transparency. There is a requirement for arbitrators to publish the details of awards made, including the reasons behind them. This will show how arbitrators have applied the principles in the Bill to reach their decision. Over time, as noble Lords have mentioned, this will allow case law to be built up.
Lord Fox (LD)
Will the department retain the ability to withdraw the accreditation of arbitration bodies in the event that their performance proves to be unsatisfactory?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I am sure that if an arbitration body is not performing satisfactorily there will be a mechanism to ensure that it does not carry on providing arbitrators, but I will check how that operates and include it in the letter that I will write to the noble Lord.
As this process continues, if there is a need to revise the guidance—for example, to clarify or add new information for arbitrators—the Secretary of State is able to do that.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, my noble friend Lord Lytton and the noble Lord, Lord Fox—it would have been simpler if I had just said everybody—asked about the affordability of arbitration. I think the market-based approach that we have adopted, in which arbitration bodies will set the fee levels, will work in practice. Arbitration bodies have, of course, extensive experience of costing and running schemes such as this; they are best placed to decide on fee levels to make the scheme affordable and accessible for parties, but also to incentivise arbitrators to take on cases and maximise capacity. We have tested the costs of similar arbitration schemes currently on offer in the market, and landlords and tenants in our consultations have both indicated that it is affordable. However, if it turns out not to be the case, Clause 19 gives the Secretary of State a power to make regulations specifying limits on the fees and expenses of arbitrators and approved arbitration bodies, if that is necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about opportunities for scrutinising the scheme once it has been implemented. I believe that ensuring that it is properly monitored will be a key aspect of a smooth delivery, and the most crucial way in which we will evaluate the scheme is through the requirement for arbitration bodies to publish their awards—a point I made earlier.
I understand that there may be concerns about the commercially sensitive nature of much of this information but, of course, arbitrators are required to exclude confidential information, including any commercially sensitive information, unless the person to whom it relates consents to its publication.
We really want the arbitration process to be as transparent as possible because, of course, it is in the public interest for it to be so. Transparency will help to establish market expectations of fair outcomes from the arbitration process on rent arrears for different business circumstances. Stakeholders raised questions—noble Lords are right—about transparency, but I believe that the relevant clause in the Bill will address that concern.
Noble Lords asked about consistency. Arbitration bodies will appoint only those arbitrators considered suitable to carry out arbitration as set out in the Bill. These bodies will also have the power to oversee any arbitration in relation to which they are appointed an arbitrator, which will provide the necessary safeguards we all want to see.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords who have engaged in today’s debate; it is a shame that we did not have a larger audience to see us in action. We have had informative and erudite contributions and, of course, as always, that is a testament to the wealth of experience in this House. I am conscious that I have not addressed all the detailed points raised by noble Lords but, of course, as well as writing, I am more than happy to meet to discuss any individual concerns as the Bill moves forward. It is a pleasure to be leading the Bill through the House, and I will warmly welcome engagement with noble Lords across the House to ensure that the Bill gives businesses and landlords the certainty and support they sorely need. I look forward to discussing it in Committee.
House of Lords
Capita: Turing Scheme Contract
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what criteria were used to determine the award to Capita of the contract to administer the Turing scheme after March 2022.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the procurement was run in line with Cabinet Office rules and bids were evaluated on the answers to four questions relating to quality and social value, compliance with a range of financial and corporate information tests and the cost of the service. Scores were moderated and weighted in line with the published evaluation model. Capita received the highest overall score and provided the best plan to administer opportunities for students to study and work abroad.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the significant disquiet within the HE sector about this contract, notably from the University and College Union and the University Council of Modern Languages, on the grounds that Capita has a track record of failure on a range of other government contracts? The criteria listed by the Minister do not convince me that due diligence adequately covered the kind of experience and networks across the sector needed to run the scheme, rather than just being a cheaper alternative to the all-round stature and experience of the British Council. What mechanisms are in place to ensure quality assurance in the Capita contract?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am happy to try to reassure the noble Baroness. We are confident that Capita has the capacity and the skills to administer the Turing scheme. The delivery of the scheme is a major DfE project and therefore subject to best-practice project management principles. We have a dedicated delivery management team that will work with Capita to make sure it is fulfilling its contractual obligations. Looking at the quality aspects relating to the scheme itself, there are performance metrics and financial incentives around the key milestones to make sure that it delivers a good service.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Capita may have been the lowest cost, but what experience does it have of higher education and international student exchange? How many fewer students do the Government expect to go to the EU as a result of this change from the Erasmus scheme? In addition to that, should we not see this in the context of the Government seeking to reduce ties with the EU?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Capita is administering the grants in relation to the scheme, and it has huge experience of that. It works with 21,000 schools, with almost all local authorities and closely with the Department for Education. If I may say so, the scheme is intentionally offering more opportunities to disadvantaged children who want to go to countries where they do not have to speak a foreign language. Over 60% of applications are for outside the EU.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not accept that there is considerable disquiet that Turing is not an adequate replacement for Erasmus? It is not reciprocal in the same way, there is no guarantee that we will receive a large stream of students from abroad, and it is more indicative of insular Britain than of global Britain.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely cannot accept what my noble friend suggests. We have had over 41,000 applications for the scheme this year. That compares with around 16,500 under Erasmus+ in 2019-20. Forty-eight per cent of those placements are from students from disadvantaged backgrounds, compared to 37% under Erasmus. We are aiming for global Britain and this reflects it.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, a huge concern is that Turing does not pay for tuition fees. What assessment have the Government made of provision within the 120 countries participating in Erasmus, since why would such providers accept UK students when Erasmus will cover the fees for those institutions?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Earl is right to raise the issue of tuition fees, but I am sure he is aware that even under Erasmus+ half of mobility placements were outside Erasmus+. Judging by the incredible success of our universities announced yesterday, with 605,000 international students coming to our universities —a ratio of two to one of in-placements to out under Erasmus—I do not think it is our top concern.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the APPG for modern and foreign languages. Removing the Turing scheme from the British Council, which has a global reach and reputation, is questionable. Awarding it to Capita, whose list of public sector failures in England is extensive, is frankly incredible. How does the Minister justify this decision? Is it based on an ideology that, axiomatically for her, “public sector bad, private sector good”, even in the face of evidence to the contrary?
Baroness Barran (Con)
No, I tried to set out at the beginning how the decision was taken but I can give the noble Baroness more detail. The criteria for appointing the new provider were based 70% on quality and 30% on cost. Within that 70%, 10% was in relation to social value and Capita came out as the stronger provider on both counts.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My noble friend touched on the extent to which disadvantaged pupils are benefiting from the scheme. Are there any further details that she can give the House?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. As I mentioned, 48% of applications have come from students from disadvantaged backgrounds. We have made it a great focus of the scheme and its promotion geographically has tried to reach communities that have not previously participated as strongly in these kinds of international exchanges. We are making sure that the nature of the placements and the financial model to support them particularly encourage disadvantaged students.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness not recognise that this issue of a lack of reciprocity and places for overseas—not just European —students in British universities is a serious failing of the Turing scheme? The figures she gives are not very convincing because we have always taken in more students to our excellent higher education sector than we have sent to others, so that is nothing new.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I can only repeat for the noble Lord that funding has been made available this year for over 41,000 placements. I appreciate that they are not all comparable in scale to the previous ones but 41,000 young people will access this scheme, compared to 16,596 under Erasmus. I leave the House to judge.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is talking about how well the Turing scheme started. She omitted to tell the House that the British Council in fact set the scheme up and ran it for the first year of its operation, having previously run Erasmus+. It has absolutely unparalleled international contacts and networks, and an understanding of student exchange. Is the Minister remotely worried that it has taken one cut in funding after another? Does she have any reservations about prioritising short-term savings over supporting a major public institution, which is part of our soft power around the world?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to pick me up on not having acknowledged the British Council’s role in the set-up of the scheme. We are very grateful to it, as we are for the way that it and the new provider are working together to ensure a seamless transition. The international network is less relevant to this contract because it is about grant administration. It is up to the institutions participating in the scheme to make those international links.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend not astonished that many of the people now carping about how the scheme is run, even though it has delivered two-and-a-half times more people, were not so long ago telling us that if Erasmus disappeared there would be no opportunities at all? Does she not get a bit tired of those people still fighting old battles?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I cannot comment on my noble friend’s final point but it is important that we look at the data and the evidence of what happens. As my noble friend has pointed out, the evidence is extremely encouraging.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, will the Government guarantee adequate funding for Turing beyond the 2022-23 academic year?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I have stated that the Turing scheme is extremely important. It is a real priority for us; obviously, we will look at future funding as part of future SR agreements.
NHS: Nurse Recruitment
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clark of Windermere
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to increase the number of nurses working in the NHS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
The Government are committed to increasing nurse numbers in the National Health Service in England. We are on target to deliver this commitment by the end of the Parliament. We are increasing domestic recruitment, expanding nursing apprenticeships, increasing ethical international recruitment and taking action to improve retention across the NHS. Nurses employed by NHS trusts and clinical commissioning groups have increased by over 10,900 since October 2020, to almost 310,100 as of October 2021.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome that increase in the number of nurses in the NHS but it is not enough, as the Minister knows. If we are to meet the needs of the NHS, we shall have to look at our dedicated and committed workforce to see if we can increase the level of retention among them. I know that the Minister talks to nurses and I am sure he hears the same as I do: almost every one will say that every day they are on the wards, they face abuse from patients. Can the Minister look at the best practice, which some hospital authorities may be pursuing, to see whether that can be applied more widely across the NHS?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving us the opportunity to thank the nurses, and indeed all medical staff, for the incredible work that they do for us, day in, day out. On retaining staff, since 2017 NHS England and NHS Improvement have supported trusts with an intensive retention and support programme. There is also emotional, psychological and practical support for NHS and care staff. It is really important that we not only recruit new staff but retain the great staff that we have.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, would the Government consider repaying student nurses’ and other healthcare workers’ course fees to retain new, young graduates in the NHS who work, for example, for two or three years?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As the noble Baroness will be aware, there is a bursary available to encourage people into nursing but we are looking at completely different training pathways. It is not the old-fashioned way of being trained as you leave school and that being your one chance. We now have a number of different ways in, including degrees and apprenticeships. I could read all the different pathways out but I am happy to write to the noble Baroness with these details.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats and the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, wishes to speak virtually. This is a convenient point to call him.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Government signed up to the 2010 World Health Organization code of practice committing to a self-sustaining supply of doctors and nurses in the UK. Yet Patrick Cockburn and Professor Rachel Jenkins point out that the UK still trains proportionally fewer medical staff than other OECD countries. When does the Minister expect us to reach the WHO target, rather than recruiting medical staff trained by countries in much worse situations than ourselves?
Lord Kamall (Con)
We do not think we should just have a protectionist view on staff. It is important that we recruit British staff from the UK, but we should not have a policy of British jobs for British workers. There are very good staff across the world. Indeed, in some countries they train more staff than they have places for in their health system so that they become a foreign revenue earner. Many people who have looked at the statistics say that remittances quite often are more effective than foreign aid.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Could the Minister say how many agency nurses are being employed by the NHS? Is he not concerned that so many are being employed when they are so much more expensive?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend makes a valuable point about the cost of agency nurses, which is why we have the goal of recruiting 50,000 nurses. We are looking at completely different pathways to ensure that we can encourage people into nursing. I do not have the statistics with me, but I will write to my noble friend.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
The Minister referred to ethical recruitment of health service professionals from overseas. Can he explain to us precisely what he means by ethical recruitment from overseas?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to explain that. It is really important that we do not suck out the best talent from countries, especially those with a shortage of medical staff. We are very clear that we talk to countries that train more staff than they need for their domestic service so that they can come here as foreign revenue earners. We have also published updated guidelines.
Lord Walney (CB)
Is it not a real problem that the Treasury has not yet set the budget for Health Education England, given that there are fewer than three months before the new financial year and it has the responsibility for the number of new nurses that are going to be trained in this country?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am afraid I disagree with the noble Lord, because we are on track to reach our 50,000 target, particularly because we are not just using one route in. We are using a number of different routes; people can retrain from other courses, and we have apprenticeships. We are looking at completely different, innovative pathways into nursing.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s own impact assessment suggests that mandatory vaccination against Covid could lead to the loss of some 73,000 NHS staff in England. When designing their policies, did the Government take into account how many nurses might be among this number? Will the Minister take the opportunity of the Health and Care Bill to bring forward a long-term workforce plan to address the shortages of nurses and other staff?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing up an issue for the Health and Care Bill. In terms of VCOD—vaccination as a condition of deployment—most NHS staff are vaccinated, and those who are reluctant to be vaccinated are being offered one-to-one conversations with management to see whether they can be persuaded to take the vaccine or be redeployed elsewhere.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, over the last two years I have been encouraged by the way in which the NHS has creatively met the mental health needs of nurses and other healthcare workers, encouraging their well-being and recognising what contributes to that. Can the Minister reassure us that the funding that has gone in over the last two years will continue to be put into the NHS, ensuring that we look after the well-being of our staff?
Lord Kamall (Con)
That is an incredibly important point, which relates to an earlier point put by the noble Lord about retention. It is important that we look after our staff. We know that the last two years have been incredibly stressful, even more than usual, and that is why we have a number of different ways to help the health and well-being of the staff.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, is it not the case that the NHS should never have got into a situation where we are so dependent on international staff from developing countries? Can he confirm whether it is true that the NHS trusts are being paid by NHS England up to £7,000 for each vacant post to try to fill those posts from overseas countries, including India and the Philippines?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I cannot comment on the exact numbers, but I will find the answer and write to the noble Baroness. I might add that I am the son of people who came from outside the UK or European Union, and I get slightly concerned with the tone when people say, “Let’s not have foreign nurses in our NHS.” It is important. Immigration plays a brilliant role in this country and always has. If you look at the post-war public services of this country, it was people from the Commonwealth who came and saved our public services.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Can I say to the Minister that more nurses means more uniforms and more garments? The NHS boasts about being the largest employer in Europe, so what action does the National Health Service take to ensure that the cotton in any of the garments used for NHS nurses’ uniforms is not grown in Xinjiang in China? The technology is available to do that; paperwork is not required, and people tell lies. The use of technology would guarantee that we could play our part in making sure that slave labour is not part of the production of our nurses’ uniforms.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I tell him that I have not examined nurses’ garments in detail. In terms of provenance, it is important at the moment—and we are doing this on lots of equipment that comes to the UK—to ensure that it is not from regions where there is slave labour, or where the Muslim Uighurs are being persecuted by the Chinese Government. We need to do more; indeed, I have had conversations in the department to find out how we can trace the sources of the products and equipment that we buy to make sure that they are ethically sourced.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has now said on several occasions that the Government will meet the target of 50,000 nurses. Can he tell us, if the Government do meet that target, what will the remaining deficit be?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am afraid I do not have the answer to that question, but I can certainly look into it. I am not sure what the deficit will be but, as I said, we are on course to recruit 50,000, not just from the UK and from different pathways—not only degrees and apprenticeships—but also from all over the world and not just Europe.
Social Care Sector: Private Equity
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of private equity on the social care sector.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw attention to my interests in the register, which states that I am an unpaid adviser to Tax Justice Network.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
Under the Care Act 2014, it is the responsibility of local authorities to shape their local markets, which are largely made up of privately owned and third sector services. No assessment of the impact of private equity on the sector has been made, but, as of December 2021, 84% of care providers are rated “Good” or “Outstanding”. The market oversight scheme mitigates the risk of a sudden failure of potentially difficult to replace care providers.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which is really unsatisfactory because private equity is a disaster for the care home sector. To take one example, HC-One, which is the largest care home operator, is siphoning off 20% of its revenues to offshore affiliates through intra-group transactions, leaving very little for front-line services. Since 2011, it has declared a loss every year except one and paid no corporation tax but paid dividends of £48.5 million. Can the Minister explain why the Government tolerate such abuses? When will there be an independent inquiry?
Lord Kamall (Con)
We value the role of independent and third sector care homes. It is important that we have that right mix. Some private companies will include private equity, and it is important not to tar all private equity with the same brush. Private equity plays a role in many companies in turning them around and retaining jobs. The important thing for us is that, if any companies are potentially in financial trouble, we have the market oversight scheme to ensure that, if they go bust, there is an ability to transfer patients elsewhere.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, front-line carers often get paid around £9 or £10 an hour, and it is hard to survive on that. Yet last year, Barchester Healthcare’s CEO collected 120 times more than his care staff. What proposals does the Minister have to ensure that public moneys paid to private care homes are used to improve care and staff welfare and not siphoned off to fat cat executives?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The CQC has a role in making sure that the care provided to care home residents is of satisfactory quality. As I said, 84% of care providers are rated good or outstanding. The market oversight scheme examines companies that could potentially be in trouble and keeps a close eye on them. There are six stages in the market oversight scheme to make sure that we manage that.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, is aware of the major benefits to our economy and the provision of social care contributed by the UK’s successful private equity sector. Private capital is driving the development of the UK’s world-leading technology sector and powers the growth of the UK’s dynamic new businesses. I have been chairman of the EIS Association for some 10 years. EIS has been a significant source of risk finance for new and small businesses. Is the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, aware that 32,965 companies have received £24 billion of EIS funds since EIS was introduced?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I correct my noble friend: his question should be directed towards me. I am not sure whether the procedure allows me to delegate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, to answer the question—I will have to find out.
The private sector, the third sector and private equity play an important role. The most important thing is the quality of care that patients get and making sure that we have a market oversight scheme, so that if any companies are potentially in trouble, we can manage that, if they go under.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, wishes to speak virtually, and I think that this is a convenient point to call her.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, typically, private equity-backed providers spend about 16% of the bed fee on complex buy-out debt obligations. The accounts of Care UK show that it paid £4.1 million in rent in 2019 to Silver Sea Holdings—a company registered in low-tax Luxembourg—which is also owned by Care UK’s parent company, Bridgepoint. Given that the ONS says that 63% of care home residents are paid for from the public purse, does the Minister not think that private equity providers should be subject to a financial code of conduct?
Lord Kamall (Con)
What is important is to make sure that we have continuous and high-quality care for patients. Therefore, where there are concerns about the financial stability of any company, whether it is funded by private equity or otherwise privately owned, it is important that we have a system to make sure that we manage that. If a company goes under, there is the ability to transfer patients to high-quality care. The important thing for us is the quality of care for patients—it is important that we put patients first.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, last year, during the pandemic, the business that my noble friend has referred to, HC-One, paid 10%—nearly £5 million, tax free—of those dividends to its financial controllers, who are holed up in the Cayman Islands. At the same time, it was given almost £20 million from the Government’s infection control fund to help it through the pandemic. Clearly, people’s pockets are getting picked here. If ever anything called for an independent inquiry, it is this behaviour by private equity businesses. Such behaviour is concerning the Bank of England: the Financial Stability Report shows that the level of leveraged debt that these businesses have is a threat to our economy.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point about the level of debt, but I am sure he is aware that a number of private companies operate with levels of debt. As we saw in the financial crisis, the issue is whether that debt is sustainable. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who is an accounting standards expert, understands all of the issues around IFRS 9 and all of the downsides to that when sufficient provision is not made for debt.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister’s predecessor in this role repeatedly told the House that there was nothing wrong with the business model for the care home sector, despite record numbers of closures—particularly of small, independent homes, which are the backbone of residential care—and the dire financial problems that they face, with councils unable to pay going rates for staff pay and residents’ fees. This is all compounded by the pandemic. The Centre for Health and the Public Interest estimates that around £1.5 billion leaks out of the health system each year, listed as
“dividend payments, net interest payments out, directors’ fees, and profits”.
Should this not all be going to front-line patient care?
Lord Kamall (Con)
We believe that the quality of care that patients receive is really important—
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sorry if people do not agree with that, but the quality of care that patients receive is the most important thing. As of November 2021, 84% of all social care settings were rated good or outstanding by the CQC. For most people, the experience of adult social care has been positive, but, clearly, the pandemic came. To mitigate the risk posed by debt and other financial pressures in the sector, the Care Quality Commission operates the market oversight scheme, which monitors the financial stability and sustainability of the largest and potentially most difficult to replace providers in the adult social care sector.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, of course the quality of care is very important, but, at the moment, it is being provided at the expense of the exploitation of workers, who are paid £9 to £10 an hour. How many noble Lords in this House would have been happy to live on that for the whole of their lives?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness raises an important point about the pay of staff. One of the things that we are looking to do with social care staff is to make sure that it is an attractive career and to persuade all providers to try to pay their staff a more sustainable wage. That is why we invested money into social care. We also must make sure that we get away from the situation where some private providers effectively subsidise state-funded providers, and make sure that they receive a suitable return.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, on a number of occasions, the Minister has referred to the fact that, if these complex financial arrangements go wrong, we have the ability to transfer patients. Would he acknowledge that, when patients are forced to be transferred, the shock is too much for some of them and they die or suffer significant health damage?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I will look into that. I thank the noble Baroness for raising that important point. As I have said a number of times—noble Lords are probably bored of hearing me say it—we take the quality of care seriously. We know that the social care sector has been, frankly, abandoned for far too long, which is one of the reasons that we have brought forward the Health and Care Bill, to make sure that we have integration across the whole of people’s life path and that they are not just forgotten towards the end of their lives.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, is the social care sector not one in which mutuals and charities are more appropriate providers than private equity companies? My family has benefited enormously from an excellent charity running a number of care homes, but I am conscious that some charities have moved out of the sector. Would the Government not like actively to encourage non-profits to be involved more widely in this sector?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very important point about mutuals: they play an incredible role. Indeed, at the founding of the NHS, one of the sad things was that the state pushed out many mutuals. The number of friendly societies and mutuals went down. It is important that we make sure that we have enough mutuals in the economy.
Veterans’ Strategy Action Plan: Gambling Addiction
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why their Veterans’ Strategy Action Plan: 2022 to 2024, published on 19 January, makes no reference to gambling addiction.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw attention to my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the action plan contains over 60 commitments worth over £70 million and sets the direction for delivering for our veterans between 2022 and 2024. It does not represent the limit of the Government’s ambitions, and we continue to work across government to address issues affecting veterans. We take gambling seriously. Veterans can access a range of support, including via the 24/7 Veterans’ Gateway, and the National Gambling Helpline also gives advice to anyone affected by gambling problems in England, Scotland and Wales.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but, as in other countries, recent research from the Forces in Mind Trust and the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund shows that the UK’s service personnel and our veterans are more likely to experience gambling harm than the general population, and yet Operation Courage, and now the Veterans’ Strategy Action Plan, make reference to help for drugs and alcohol problems but not gambling problems. Does the Minister now accept that there is sufficient evidence to justify much greater action on this issue?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s work in this area. I will not allow myself to venture into personal opinions on gambling—I am answering as a Minister. We are grateful to the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund for its work and are assessing its findings and the Forces in Mind Trust report. We will take both those reports very seriously in considering our work going forward.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, we are at times in danger of giving the impression that the majority of our veterans who leave service are troubled, yet I remind your Lordships’ House that 96% of service leavers make a successful transition to a civilian career within six months of leaving. It is an excellent action plan, but if I were to have one criticism, it is that it is not until page 32 that the Government first talk about promoting a positive image of our veterans. Can I ask my noble friend if that could be the headline—that service veterans are excellent people to employ?
Lord True (Con)
I agree profoundly with what my noble friend said, and he is right that the significant majority of veterans go on to live happy and healthy lives when they move out of the Armed Forces, and make as great a contribution to our society when they are not serving as when they did. That does not absolve the Government of the duty to stand by those who need additional support.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the RAF Benevolent Fund research, to which the noble Lord, Lord Foster, refers, merely corroborates the Army’s own assessment that military veterans are eight times more likely to have gambling problems than the rest of the country’s population. Should the Government ask themselves not what do we do for the people whose distress has caused them to fall into this difficulty, but why there is such a prevalence of those who give their military service to this country developing this distressing condition?
Lord True (Con)
I do not detract from the significance of what the noble Lord said, with his very great experience. The reality is that this Government take seriously the gambling concerns and problems in all sectors of society, and are committed to tackling gambling-related harms. As he will know, the Ministry of Defence is continuing to develop welfare support policies for supporting personnel, including those with gambling problems, and the MoD restricts the ability of service personnel to access online gambling sites.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a necessity for an up-to-date community survey that will measure problem gambling among both Armed Forces and civilian populations?
Lord True (Con)
There is a Gambling Act review, which I know that some noble Lords will feel is taking a little time. It will be, and is, the most thorough review of gambling law since the Labour Government’s Act and we need to get it right. We are continuing with that and have already taken interim action—for example, banning gambling on credit cards.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, it is absolutely right that we pay tribute to those veterans who have successfully transitioned back into civilian life, but nevertheless the research by the RAF Benevolent Fund is striking, with much higher levels of problem gambling and at-risk gambling among veterans, which we need to attend to. Are there any plans by Her Majesty’s Government to screen those transitioning back into civilian life, and to provide additional support where necessary?
Lord True (Con)
As I have already said, the Government are grateful to the RAF Benevolent Fund and are considering that research. The NHS long-term plan is addressing provision for those who have gambling problems, and we will continue to work to ensure that we detect and support problems where they arise. In that respect, I am on all fours with every noble Lord who has contributed so far.
Lord Lexden (Con)
I commend the Government for establishing a review of the treatment of LGBT veterans who served in our Armed Forces between 1967 and 2000, when many were disciplined, dismissed and humiliated for homosexual conduct which was perfectly legal in civilian life. Can my noble friend assure these veterans that, when the review is completed, it will be followed by action to address the suffering and hardship that they endured?
Lord True (Con)
I pay tribute to my noble friend and others on all Benches who have campaigned on this matter. I am pleased to tell him that setting up this process is not the end; the end is the action that follows. We are committed to taking tangible action, where appropriate, to redress past wrongs. To do this in a meaningful way, we have to fully understand the impact that the historic ban still has today, and the independent review will help to do that.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we know from research from Swansea University and others that veterans are 10 times more likely than non-veterans to experience problem gambling, yet we do not screen for it. Support for those leaving the Armed Forces has vastly improved in recent decades but there is still more to do, and support cannot be provided if we do not know those most likely to need it. When the Minister goes back to his department and speaks to colleagues at the MoD, will he encourage them to include screening for a propensity for problem gambling as part of the usual mental health screening?
Lord True (Con)
I am sure that my colleagues will take note of everything said in this House; I certainly promise the noble Baroness that. I remind the House, if anyone doubts this Government’s commitment, that it was this Government who set up the first ever dedicated Office for Veterans’ Affairs, to champion veterans in every respect, at the heart of government. We have an action plan and we will have a veterans strategy refresh, drawing on all the wise advice given by your Lordships and others, but I think the Government deserve some credit for what has actually been done here.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is not the truth of the matter that the explosion in gambling addiction is a consequence of the Labour Government’s decision to change the law which previously prevented people promoting and stimulating demand for gambling?
Lord True (Con)
My noble friend puts me in a dangerous place. The Government’s answer—and it is right—is to undertake as comprehensive a review of the Gambling Act as there has ever been, and that will be pursued. My personal view, as a sports fan, is that I am sick and tired of gambling advertising being thrust down viewers’ throats.
Ministerial Code
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether their Ministers are expected to abide by the standards of conduct as set out in paragraph 1.3(c) of the Ministerial Code, as reflected in the resolution of the House of 20 March 1997 and paragraph 4.67 of the Companion to Standing Orders.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
Yes, my Lords. Like all Ministers, I assented to the Ministerial Code on entering office, as I am sure all those in this House in all parties who have had the honour of serving as one of Her Majesty’s Ministers will have done. The code sets out the standards expected of all those who serve in government. Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in light of the code, and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Foulkes on Tuesday 7 December, the Minister of State—the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith —denied reports that the Prime Minister intervened to evacuate an animal charity from Kabul at the height of the crisis. Yesterday, however, the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee published an email from the Minister’s private office in August, which stated, contrary to this, that
“the PM has just authorised their staff and animals to be evacuated”.
Only one of these two statements can be true—which is it? Given that paragraph 4.67 of the Companion clearly states that Ministers must correct any inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity, or offer their resignation if they have knowingly misled, surely the noble Lord, Lord True, agrees that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, should, as a matter of urgency, return to make a Statement to the House. It is what all noble Lords would expect.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the code, and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public. I refer the noble Lord opposite to the statement that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith put out yesterday, in which he said:
“I did not authorise & do not support anything that would have put animals’ lives ahead of people’s … I never discussed the … charity or their efforts to evacuate animals with the”
Prime Minister.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, did the Minister by any chance see the strapline comment by Guido Fawkes over the video of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, leaving the Chamber, which read, “We have now reached the point where Ministers have to explain which scandal of the Government’s they are resigning over”? We have another scandal here—an apparent contradiction between what one Minister has said and what it appears from the official record—which needs to be cleared up. We have a Ministerial Code which is effectively policed by a Prime Minister who has now lost public trust. Could not the Government begin to regain public trust by accepting recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life that the Ministerial Code should be placed on a firmer statutory basis?
Lord True (Con)
The noble Lord started off with “scandal” and retreated to “apparent contradiction”. I would advise him and others to refer both to the statement put out by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith and the official statements put out by No. 10 Downing Street and the Defence Secretary at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee yesterday.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, once again we are being treated to Ministers in studios and in the House not facing up to the fact that the evidence is out there. These emails are there for people to see. I have not heard one Minister deny that the Nowzad animals were helped out of Afghanistan by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the Prime Minister—and possibly also by the intervention of his wife—or say that these emails are not correct. So the evidence is there. Over and above that, my noble friend Lord Foulkes, who cannot be with us today, was on LBC last night with Dominic Dyer, who explained at length how it happened, because he was involved in identifying the Prime Minister, his wife and the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, as helping them to get the animals out of Afghanistan. He is upset because they will not take credit for it; that is what is upsetting him. So when will we get to the point where Ministers here or in television studios will live in the same world as the rest of us, when all the evidence proves the contrary of what they are saying?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I fear I say too often in this House that allegations do not constitute proof. I remind noble Lords that whatever the context of this particular circumstance, a truly outstanding operation was conducted to remove people from Afghanistan safely. I repeat that statements have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, No. 10 Downing Street and the Defence Secretary which repudiate the allegations being made.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Lord not accept that it is the duty of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to come to this House and correct or explain the statement, or misstatement, that he made—not to make statements generally? He owes a duty to this House.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will read and hear what the noble Baroness has said. I said in my original Answer that Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to justify their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the Minister that allegations do not constitute evidence, but is he suggesting that this is an allegation of a forgery?
Lord True (Con)
No, my Lords—I am saying that there is a set of allegations which have been made in many respects and in many circumstances over the last few weeks, in relation not only to this alleged incident but to others, which are allegations and not proof. We well know the impatience that your Lordships have for the conclusion of the Sue Gray inquiry and the Metropolitan Police investigations, but these matters need to be investigated, the facts established and the truth revealed.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to prolong this unnecessarily, but I think the noble Lord may have missed the point. The only point my noble friends Lord Collins and Lord Browne were raising was that if the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, made a statement to this House that appears on the face of it to be at odds with a statement in an email from his private office that is now public, can he not come to your Lordships’ House to explain? I think that is a very straightforward request, and I hope that the noble Lord, given the comments he has made about Ministers acting on their personal honour, would want to convey that to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, at the very least. No one is making any allegations, but the House would like, and deserves, an explanation.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again, I listen respectfully to the noble Baroness and to all in the House. I stand on the answer I gave that it is for Ministers to decide how to justify their actions and conduct, but I repeat that the assertions that have been made have been repudiated by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, No. 10 Downing Street and the Defence Secretary.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, in the interests of transparency and good government, will the Minister go back to his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and ask him to come to this House immediately and explain the accurate situation of what really happened, because we now have this email?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again, I repeat that everything your Lordships say will of course be referred to those with whom your Lordships are concerned. But I must underline the fact that in the current state of affairs in our country, there are a great deal of allegations that are being taken as fact, and I stand by that comment also. People are innocent until proved guilty.
Subsidy Control Bill
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Subsidy Control Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 9, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 10 to 78, Schedule 3, Clauses 79 to 92, Title.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Callanan, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 November 2021 be approved.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 January.
Microchipping of Dogs (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 January.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Benyon, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services Licence Modification Appeals) (Prescribed Aerodromes) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 November 2021 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 January.
Competition Appeal Tribunal (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
That the draft Order laid before the House on 16 December 2021 be approved.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 January.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 15 December 2021 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 January.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Thursday 27th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (27 Jan 2022)
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
The JCHR recommended that the Home Office consider how best to ensure that the intention to treat those previously discriminated against equally well as those not previously discriminated against, is made clear in the drafting of Clause 1. This amendment is to probe the drafting of Clause 1.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 1 is grouped with Amendments 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17 and 21. Amendment 9 is in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and my noble friend Lady Ludford; the others are all in our names.
This Bill is not all bad, so I am glad to be able to start with Part 1, most of which we support, although the exceptions to that support are very significant. This rather gentle introduction is to probe into the clause that remedies historical inequalities. What is not to like? One thing that I do not like—which is not directly related to the Bill, but I am going to take this opportunity to say it—is that I am not comfortable with receiving so many briefings from organisations to which we cannot do justice. That is my discomfort. It is not that we do not want the briefings, but often they come too late for us to reflect concerns in amendments. I know that I am not alone in this House in finding it hard to keep on top of the material and feeling particularly bad about not being able to use all that is sent to us. I hope that organisations—which I know are very often overstretched and understaffed, and have their day job to get on with—will understand that we are not ignoring them, but please could they send us material earlier than sometimes they do? I am sure I am not the only one who has received briefings this morning.
I turn to the substance of the matter. Clause 1 provides for parents where there is discrimination in British nationality law that prevents mothers passing on British Overseas Territories citizenship to their children. It provides for the parents in such cases to be treated equally in terms of passing on that citizenship. The Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out that this could mean equally well or equally badly; naively, I had not thought about it being equally badly. The way the clause is drafted is not the same as Section 4C of the British Nationality Act, which addresses the same discrimination in respect of British citizenship. That uses the phrase “in the same terms”, and that is what is proposed in several of these various amendments. I understand that concerns have also been raised that the reference to the parents having “been treated equally” is, on its face, unclear. The JCHR said it would be prudent to deal with the drafting so that it is “in the same terms”. I add that when you have different wording relating to very similar situations, that in itself suggests that the two should be dealt with differently.
Amendment 8 takes us to the issue of good character and would repeal Section 41A of the British Nationality Act. That section requires adults and young persons to be “of good character” if they are to be able to register as British citizens. If someone has the right to become a British citizen—or, more accurately in some cases, to have their right to citizenship registered, because the right is to citizenship and registration is simply the procedure—then what is done by the right hand should not, by giving discretion to the Secretary of State, let the left hand take it away. I hope the Secretary of State will allow me, for this purpose, to describe her as the left hand.
This point applies to Amendments 10 and 19 and to Amendment 9 from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and my noble friend Lady Ludford. Their explanatory statement is much more elegantly expressed than mine, but it is the same point. This point is particularly acute in the case of a child. Is the test really in the child’s best interests? I saw a bit of resonance with the police Bill, which I was going to say we have so recently finished but of course we have not, when we debated an amendment about candidates’ disqualification for standing for office as police and crime commissioners because of a misdemeanour—I think I can almost use that term in its technical sense—in their youth. This term is not the same as that; it is more amorphous. It is a discretionary matter and is of particular concern. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendments 8 and 9 about good character. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am particularly concerned about its application to children and those whose conduct when a child—and we are talking about children as young as 10—is used to deny the right to register as a citizen, which would otherwise be theirs.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has voiced its concern, not just with regard to this Bill but in a 2019 report, where it pointed out that
“half of the children denied their … right … to British nationality on good character grounds have not even received a criminal conviction (having merely received a police caution)—let alone been prosecuted for ‘heinous crimes’.”
The Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, of which I was a member, expressed considerable concern about the good character requirement. The committee called for a review of its use and description and of the age from which it applies—which is, as I said, 10. The Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, of which I am a patron, and Amnesty International, which have been campaigning on this point for some years, say:
“That some British people are required to satisfy the Home Secretary that they are ‘good’ for their citizenship rights to be recognised is divisive and alienating.”
I am not sure how many politicians would come out well as having “good character”, but I shall leave that as it may be. The good character condition is relatively recent in nationality law. It certainly should not be extended; ideally, it should now be scrapped.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, the Joint Committee on Human Rights spent quite a lot of time considering this and related issues. I should perhaps say at the outset that when I was in the Commons, I served on the Public Bill Committee dealing with the Bill that became the British Nationality Act. I am trying for the life of me to remember some of the details of the discussions. I have not had time to look them all up, but we certainly spent many weeks and many sittings on that Bill, but I do not recall this issue arising. I do not think the good character requirement existed then; I think it was brought in later.
The issue is that in the process of trying to get British nationality, there has been some discrimination, or there would be discrimination if the good character requirement were to apply. I am thinking of somebody who should normally have been able to get British citizenship but was unable to do so and, when applying now, if this is passed, will have to meet the good character requirement. That seems a little odd. I hope I have understood that correctly; that was certainly how we looked at it on the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Perhaps the best thing I can do is to quote from the committee’s report, because it states it very clearly. This is from paragraph 41:
“We reiterate concerns made by this Committee in previous Parliaments that requiring good character when considering applications resolving prior discrimination risks perpetuating the effects of discrimination for those previously discriminated against. Moreover, we also share the concerns raised by the JCHR in 2019 about the appropriateness of the good character requirements being applied to children, particularly children whose main or only real connection may be with the UK. It is difficult to align this requirement with the obligation to have the best interests of the child as a primary consideration.”
That is the case for this amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has comprehensively explained the reasons for these amendments, which we support. On the issue of good character, if someone has the right to become a British citizen—they already have that right; they just want to register it—what has good character got to do with it, particularly if they are children? Even if the applicant is guilty of a criminal offence, surely denial of citizenship is a disproportionate punishment.
What are we to say about people who acquire British citizenship at birth? We do not say to British citizens, “You’ve been found guilty of a criminal offence, so we are going to take away your citizenship.” What is the difference if people have to apply to register their British citizenship? We fully support these amendments.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I just second what everyone else has said, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, whose Amendment 9 I have had the honour to co-sign. As he pointed out, the key element to stress here is that the imposition of a good character requirement for citizenship now would perpetuate discrimination against those who have been discriminated against in the past, when the whole—laudable—point of Part 1, which, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out, is the only good bit of the Bill, is to rectify historical injustice.
Indeed, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights believes, it could well amount to
“unlawful discrimination, contrary to Article 14 as read with Article 8 ECHR, to require a person to prove good character when remedying previous unlawful discrimination against that person.”
When applied to children, it is even more unfair and obviously against their best interests. Hence the need to delete Clause 3(4), which is the focus of Amendment 9. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to the quotation that this is “divisive, alienating” and unjust, compared to the treatment of other British citizens.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, briefly, I offer Green group support for these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made a point that needs to be reinforced. We have a question, which will arise later with my Amendment 33. Do we have one class of British citizenship or two? If you are not a British citizen because of past discrimination, can we really allow you to be discriminated against again just because of where you or where your parents were born? That is simply unacceptable.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, we strongly welcome Clause 1 and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, in a Bill where there is so little to welcome, the early clauses of Part 1 seek to redress historical injustices in our nationality law. That is certainly welcomed from these Benches, as well as by other noble Lords who have spoken.
Clause 1 corrects an historical injustice left over from what many would regard as the appalling situation in which mothers did not have the same citizenship rights as fathers. It addresses the citizenship rights of children of mothers who were British Overseas Territory citizens. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her amendments. We raised the clarity of drafting of the clause when the Bill was in the Commons. As the noble Baroness also explained, this concern was raised by the JCHR, which noted that the language in this clause is not the same as the language used for similar purposes in the 1981 Act and raised questions over how well the clause achieves its intention. The JCHR said:
“We recommend that the Home Office consider how best to ensure that the intention to treat those previously discriminated against equally well as those not previously discriminated against, is made clear in the drafting of clause 1.”
In the Commons, my colleagues pushed the Government to amend the clause so that its drafting reflects the drafting in the 1981 Act, when this discrimination was addressed for children of British citizens. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that, in raising this concern, we are all trying to get this right and make the clause work as it should.
The Minister’s response in the Commons was that he did not believe that amendments were necessary, which is quite a standard government reply, and that the current drafting worked as intended. He also said that these points would be further clarified in underpinning guidance. Have the Government given this issue further thought since it was raised in the Commons? What objection do they have to a minor amendment to answer the JCHR’s concerns? If Ministers believe that that will be further clarified in guidance, should they not consider clarifying it in the Bill?
When we consider the good character requirement—I do not want to repeat everything that has been said—the JCHR is concerned that requiring good character when considering applications resolving prior discrimination risks perpetuating the effects of discrimination for those previously discriminated against. Much of this debate is familiar. As has been said, over the past few years the JCHR has routinely raised concerns about the impact of the good character requirement in cases resolving previous discrimination and in cases concerning children. I simply ask: how does that square with our primary duty to act in the best interests of the child and how is that currently balanced with the good character test? Can the Minister provide details to the Committee on how many children each year are refused citizenship based on this requirement and on what grounds it is deemed that they do not meet the test?
I too welcome the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Dubs on behalf of the JCHR on the application of the good character requirement in Clause 3. I simply wish to make the point that we are debating this clause due to gaps left in the law where we attempt to redress historical discrimination. Where the JCHR is raising concerns that the good character requirement is inappropriate where an applicant has already had their rights denied for a significant number of years, the Government should consider that challenge seriously. If we are to remove existing injustices in our system, we should do so thoroughly and with great care, so that we do not find ourselves having to come back for further fixes at a future date.
I look forward to the noble Baroness the Minister’s reply on behalf of the Government—or perhaps it is the noble Lord; I am sorry.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank noble Lords, and I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Rosser..
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling Amendments 1 and 2. Both refer to Clause 1, which I am pleased to introduce, as it corrects a long-standing anomaly in British nationality law. I appreciate my noble friend’s attention to detail in seeking to make sure that this new provision is clear and in line with the parallel provision in the British Nationality Act 1981 for children of British citizen mothers. However, we do not think that an amendment is needed, as the proposed wording here achieves what is intended. In saying that this provision applies to someone who would have been a citizen had their parents been treated equally, we are talking about a situation where the law applied equally to mothers or fathers, women or men. We are satisfied that the current wording does what is required.
I turn now to Amendment 8 and consequential Amendments 10, 12, 17 and 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. British citizenship is a privilege, reserved for those who meet the requirements of the British Nationality Act 1981 and who respect the law and values of the UK. This is reflected by the statutory requirement for an individual to be of good character when they apply for British citizenship. Published guidance sets out the basis for how we assess whether a person is of good character and the types of conduct that must be taken into account as part of this assessment.
Decision-makers are required to give careful consideration to each application on a case-by-case basis, and must decide on the balance of probabilities whether an applicant is of good character. Grounds for refusal of citizenship on the basis of not meeting the good character test include criminality that meets the threshold laid out in guidance, immigration offending such as illegal entry or unlawful residence, and serious adverse behaviour such as war crimes, terrorism or genocide. Such behaviour is fundamentally in opposition to core British values of decency and adherence to the law. Removing the good character requirement from all registration routes for British citizenship would mean that we could no longer refuse citizenship to those opposed to these values.
I turn, finally, to Amendment 9, for which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs; I know he has taken a great interest in a number of the provisions of the Bill. I start by reassuring the Committee that the Government are committed to removing discrimination from nationality legislation. That is the aim of Clauses 1 and 2. The Government also recognise the difficulties that current British nationality law has presented for some British Overseas Territories citizen parents who wish to pass on their citizenship. However, the Government do not agree that the application of the good character requirement as set out in Clause 3(4) results in unlawful discrimination. Removing the good character requirement for those applying to register as a British citizen having acquired British Overseas Territories citizenship through the new routes established by Clauses 1 and 2, as this amendment proposes, would be unfair and inconsistent with the approach for British Overseas Territories citizens who can apply to become British citizens by virtue of Section 3 of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 and who are subject to the good character requirement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the word “misdemeanour” in connection with such matters. We need to be clear that the guidance is clear that a criminal record does not necessarily mean that an application for citizenship will be refused. Those with a non-custodial sentence or who have received an out-of-court disposal will normally be refused citizenship unless three years have passed. Caseworkers have discretion to make an exceptional grant of citizenship in certain circumstances. On the subject of children, we ought to remind ourselves that 10 years old is the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales.
I want to clarify that the good character test applies only to new provisions introduced in the Bill to resolve historical discrimination where it already applies to the current route that the person would have been entitled to register under had the discrimination not existed. So the only people who will have to meet a good character requirement under Clause 3 are those who would have had an entitlement to registration as a British Overseas Territories citizen under Sections 15(3), 17(2) and 17(5) if their parents had been married, because registration under those routes carries a good character requirement.
To try to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, where people would have become British automatically had women and unmarried fathers been able to pass on citizenship at the time of their birth, the good character requirement does not apply.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how many children this issue has affected. I am afraid that I do not know the answer and will have to write to him. I should say that if the person would have become British automatically had the discrimination not existed, they will not now have to meet the good character requirement. That deserves reiteration.
I ask noble Lords to withdraw or not move their amendments for the reasons that I have outlined.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Can the noble Lord address the point that I made, which I think was in the JCHR report? The courts have said that there should be an overall assessment—a holistic approach—that looks at good character as well as bad. However, the noble Lord appeared to concentrate only on a bad record being a triggering factor. He used the phrase “balance of probabilities”, but did not say that something bad could be outweighed by an otherwise wholly good record. He did not appear to suggest or confirm that overall holistic approach. He concentrated only on the negative triggers, which is precisely a fear expressed in the JCHR report. It goes against what the courts have said should be the approach.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her request for clarification. Guidance is clear that a criminal record does not necessarily mean that an application for citizenship will be refused. As I said earlier, those with a non-custodial sentence or who have received an out-of-court disposal will normally be refused citizenship unless three years have passed. But—and this is the key point—caseworkers have discretion to make an exceptional grant of citizenship in certain circumstances, which, I should imagine, would very much cover the circumstances that the noble Baroness has just described.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, there is clearly concern about good character. I echo my noble friend’s query; the point about a holistic assessment has not been answered. I appreciate that those briefing the noble Lord might not have anticipated the question, but the way in which a caseworker sets about the task is fundamental to this issue.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I did not mean to imply that the noble Baroness was saying that. I apologise for intervening on the noble Baroness, but I want to clarify the caseworker point. To answer the question, they do look at cases in the whole.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Thank you. That is good to know.
I come back to the registration point that we are dealing with. The Minister made some distinction between different routes. I take that point. I am not capable of making these distinctions myself, on my feet, without a lot of papers spread around me.
Section 41A is about registration. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that it must have come in after the Bill had been introduced in order for it to be numbered in this way.
I turn to my first two amendments—to replace “equally” with “in the same terms”. I repeat my point that having one concept expressed in different ways in the same Act is bound to cause confusion, if not trouble. This may be very boring and it does not go to the root of a lot of what we are debating, but it is potentially of great importance in practice. I hope that the government lawyers can look at it again—or perhaps all my legal training is out of date. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
“(7) The Secretary of State must not charge a fee for the processing of applications under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the Secretary of State must not charge a fee for the processing of applications under section 17A.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill, as I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I want to speak to the amendments in my name in this group. I look forward to hearing the thrust of Amendment 13 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. At the outset, I declare that my mother was a naturalised Brit through marriage, under an earlier incarnation of this Act. I am also a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates.
I shall move Amendment 3 and speak to Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 18 and 22. I am enormously grateful to Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland for his expertise and briefing in preparing these amendments, which concern the fees to be charged under Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the Bill. The amendments are the work of the Law Society of Scotland, and in particular I pay tribute to its immigration and asylum sub-committee, which has considered this part of the Bill in some detail.
The Law Society of Scotland states that it agrees with Clause 1, subject to the registration process being free. There is no clarity around that in Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 7. This is a cause of concern and which is why I have tabled these amendments. In this connection, the Law Society acknowledges and agrees with the 2020 report by British Future, Barriers to Britishness. At pages 10 and 11, it recommends:
“Citizenship by registration should be free for those who become British by this route. This group mostly comprises children and those with subsidiary categories of British nationality, such as British Overseas Territories Citizens and British National (Overseas) passport holders from Hong Kong who now have a route to citizenship through the bespoke British National (Overseas) visa.
Nationality law should be amended to allow children born in the UK to be British citizens automatically, restoring a policy that applied before 1983.
Vulnerable groups of people should be encouraged to take legal advice, which should be affordable and widely available in all parts of the UK.”
The Law Society looked particularly at the case of PRCBC and O v Secretary of State for the Home Department—reported in “[2021] EWCA Civ 193”—where the Court of Appeal held that the fee of £1,012 for certain applications by children to register was unlawfully high. An appeal to the United Kingdom Supreme Court has recently been heard. We await the decision in due course.
I also want to refer to the extremely helpful report from the Constitution Committee of this House about the Bill. Paragraph 16 concludes:
“The Government should clarify its intentions on the amount of fees to be charged under Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 7.”
The committee sought clarity as to what fees will be charged for registration applications under this clause and under similar provisions in Clauses 2, 3 and 7, referred to earlier. The committee also referred to the forthcoming appeal decision of the Supreme Court.
I urge my noble friend, when summing up on this little group of amendments, to come forward and say whether fees are going to be applied and at what level they will be set. It is inappropriate to discuss the Bill at this stage and not to have any idea as to what fees will be charged during the process. With those few remarks, I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 13 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham—who cannot be here today—for their support. I support the other amendments in this group. I am grateful, too, to the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, of which I am a patron, and to Amnesty International UK, for their help. Once again, I pay tribute to them for their continued work to promote children’s citizenship rights.
Essentially, the new clause would ensure that children are not excluded from their right to citizenship by registration by unaffordable fee levels, well above the cost of administering that right. It will also require action to raise awareness of this right.
It feels a bit like Groundhog Day. I have lost count of the number of times we have raised this issue in your Lordships’ House. Indeed, we are now known as “Terriers United”, although I do not think that all the terriers are able to be present today. On our last outing, during debate on the then Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill of 2020, I warned the Minister that we would be snapping at the Home Office’s heels until we achieved justice for this vulnerable group of children.
I will recap the arguments briefly. We are talking about a group of children who were either born here to parents—neither of whom was, at that time, British or settled—or who have grown up here from an early age and have rights to register as British citizens. A combination of factors, notably the exorbitant fee of more than £1,000—£640 more than the most recent stated cost of administration—lack of awareness of the need to register, and the difficulties faced by local authorities with regard to looked-after children, have resulted in thousands of children being denied that right to British citizenship, even though it is theirs. A High Court judgment, to which I shall return, noted the mass of evidence. As a consequence, many children born in the UK feel alienated, excluded, isolated, second best, insecure and not fully assimilated in the culture and social fabric of the UK.
When we last debated this issue, as part of an amendment calling for a review of the barriers to registration of the right to citizenship, the Minister said:
“I completely acknowledge the points that the noble Baroness makes about citizenship costs; I will not tell her that you do not need citizenship to live here, because your Lordships will not accept that sort of answer.”
Quite right. I trust that there will be no attempt to revive such arguments today. Instead of trying to combat our arguments, the Minister proposed a “task-and-finish activity”. This would involve discussion of the issues in the wider context of societal cohesion and integration, which, sadly, will suffer as a result of this Bill. She then said that she would
“think about how we can then bring that back to the House”.—[Official Report, 5/10/20; cols. 429-30.]
Well, we had one initial meeting. It was very constructive, but it did not really address the substance of the withdrawn amendment, and nothing came back to the House.
In the meantime, there has been a significant development: the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s judgment which had found the fee unlawful because of the Home Office’s failure to take account of the best interests of children under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act. It is worth noting a few points from the Court of Appeal’s judgment. First, it spelled out:
“There is no issue but that the recent and current levels of fees have had a serious adverse impact on the ability of a significant number of children to apply successfully for registration.”
It noted that payment of the fee would involve “unreasonable sacrifices” for those on low or middle incomes and, in the case of the children of lone parents on benefits,
“it is difficult to see how the fee could be afforded at all.”
Secondly, it underlined the importance of citizenship. Both these points, it said, were
“not disputed by the Secretary of State.”
Thirdly, and crucially, it said that, because
“no other consideration is inherently more significant than the best interests of the child”,
the Home Secretary
“must identify and consider the best interests of the child … and must weigh those interests against countervailing considerations.”
The judgment gave short shrift to the frankly pathetic Home Office argument that the debate on the fees initiated by Members of both Houses constituted consideration of children’s best interests. The chutzpah of trying to put that argument takes my breath away; anyway, the court would have nothing to do with it.
The case was heard by the Court of Appeal in October 2020 and the judgment was given in February 2021. The Home Office chose not to appeal against the best interests judgment yet, nearly a year later, it still has not published the outcome of the best interests review required by that judgment. However, because of a separate appeal on a different point of law to the Supreme Court in the name of PRCBC, of which I am a patron, and O, whose case it was, judgment on which is still awaited, Ministers now argue that publication of the best interests review must await that judgment. Why, given that the judgment has nothing to do with the best interests review?
As it happens, I understand that the judgment will be given next week. Can the Minister therefore commit to publishing the outcome of the best interests review swiftly following that judgment, and certainly before Report? If not, why not? The longer the continued wait, the more children will be denied their right to citizenship because of the level of the fee. This cannot be right. Please do not use the Supreme Court’s irrelevant judgment as an excuse for rejecting this amendment. These children cannot afford to wait any longer. Every month of delay is another month of exclusion and alienation from British society. The terriers are growing very impatient.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 13 on behalf of my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who sadly cannot be in the House until later today. He wishes to declare his interests in relation to both RAMP and Reset, as set out in the register. The following words are his, but I will say that I wholeheartedly agree with every one of them.
My interest comes from my ongoing engagement in this House with issues concerning children and ensuring that their best interests are central to legislation. The Government should be doing everything they can to ensure that all children in the UK have the opportunity to thrive. We should be working to remove barriers that they may face in seeking to reach their full potential. The current British citizenship registration fees create a barrier for many children to being and feeling fully part of society.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is great pleasure to be one of the terriers of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and a signatory to Amendment 13. I thank her for her conviction, eloquence and persistence in bringing this issue back to us again. It is, as I said at Second Reading, an opportunity to put right old wrongs, and we should not miss this opportunity yet again.
When she introduced this group, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, reminded us of her origins and, therefore, of an interest. I suppose I should declare to the House that I too am the son of an immigrant. My mother was Irish; Irish, not English, was her first language. She came here at the end of the Second World War and married my father, who was a Desert Rat and had fought at El Alamein; he also saw action at Monte Cassino and elsewhere. He was brought up in the East End of London, where he saw terrible anti-Semitism. He and his brothers enlisted in the Armed Forces because they wanted to contest the fascism represented by the Nazis in Germany—and one of them paid the ultimate price.
I say that simply to illustrate that you do not have to hate one country—Ireland, in this case—to love another. I am very proud of the fact that I have both a British and an Irish passport, as do my children and grandchildren. I hope that they, too, will grow up knowing about the traditions that they come from but being incredibly proud to be British citizens.
In the same spirit that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, described her origins, I will say that, when I went to the great city of Liverpool as a student, I was pretty shocked when I went out in my second year looking for accommodation to see in tobacconists’ windows notices that advertised accommodation and said, “No blacks and no Irish need apply”. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and I have this shared experience in common.
It is against that backdrop, as well as being a patron of Asylum Link Merseyside and having been involved in these issues over the years in both Houses, that I am particularly keen to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said today. Indeed, I was involved in the 1981 proceedings in the House of Commons on what became the British Nationality Act. It was, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will recall, a genuine attempt to try to define what it meant to be British. It certainly was not part of our proceedings at that time to take away the rights of children to register because of prohibitive costs debarring them from becoming citizens. I felt so strongly about this that, when I was asked whether I would provide a witness statement about what I believed to be the considerations that we had in 1981, I provided that statement to the High Court in the action that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, described to us.
I should also mention that the late Lord Sacks, Jonathan Sacks, in two great books, The Home We Build Together and The Dignity of Difference, spelt out the nature of citizenship and why we have to learn to live alongside one another and to value the idea of citizenship. During 20 years or so as director of the Liverpool John Moores University Foundation for Citizenship, I explored the issue. It is good to see the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, here today, because she was one of our lecturers as part of the Roscoe series of lectures looking at what it means to be British and how we all should fulfil our individual missions to be good citizens in our society.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has told us the High Court ruling. It is not the fault of the Government that this has gone for further definition at the Supreme Court, but why on earth did the Government not accept the decision of the High Court on this specific point about the cost of citizenship for children and leave the other issues to be decided about the general parameters, as she said? The one does not stop the other and the House should turn its attention to this.
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court ruling that the £1,012 fee for a child to register as a British citizen was unlawful, because it was set without consideration of the best interests of children. That is at the heart of this amendment. Two of the judges, I might add, also saw great force in the argument that is continuing at the Supreme Court—that it may be additionally unlawful because it effectively deprives many children of their rights to British citizenship.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has been very diligent in responding to questions on this issue, including a Question that I had tabled in the House on 19 October 2020. I said then that it was
“passing strange that the Home Office can calculate the difference between the £640 that it costs to administer the citizenship fee and the £1,012 that it actually charges, even to children in care, but cannot assess the legal costs of contesting the High Court’s judgment? Instead of racking up lawyers’ fees and subsidising the immigration system with what Sajid Javid”,
when he was Home Secretary,
“rightly called huge citizenship fees, should it not be reviewing this policy as noble Lords from right across your Lordships’ Chamber have argued?”
In 2020, there was indeed a widespread view across the House. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said:
“Putting a financial barrier on being able to access one’s rights is a clear barrier to one’s access to justice”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said:
“this is not about immigration but about children with the right to register as citizens and potentially denying them their right to register if they cannot fund more than £1,000”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, asked:
“Will the Minister tell the House whether the Home Office carried out a children’s best interest assessment of the Government’s policy on fees in light of the original judgment?”
As far as I know, that question remains unanswered. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked the Government to explain why
“the Government want the immigration system to be self-funding in a way that no other government department is”.
Again, this seems an unanswered question, but in the course of these proceedings we really need to have an answer. I was struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, one of the longest-serving Members of your Lordships’ House, said from the Government Benches. She asked,
“whether the Government have assessed how many people forgo registering for British citizenship for themselves and their families as they cannot afford it? How this might contribute to their sense of belonging and well-being is important”.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, asked:
“Can the Minister tell the House whether she believes it is right that the immigration system is subsidised by children who are born in Britain and have lived their entire life in Britain and have the right to be British?”—[Official Report, 19/10/20; cols. 1273-74.]
I could go on, but I will not. The point is surely now registered with noble Lords. We have the chance between now and on Report not to turn this into yet another contested issue. There is feeling across the House that we need to put right this injustice. This is about putting right an old wrong and I hope the Government will attend to it.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I briefly pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for her campaigning on this issue and on so many related issues on behalf of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and other distinguished Members of the Committee on bringing this issue to the fore.
For me, the nub perhaps lies in the distinction between some comments that the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—made on the previous group about British nationality being a privilege and comments made in this group repeatedly by almost every speaker about the rights of these children or the rights of this or that group.
We all acknowledge that to be British is, in a colloquial sense, always a privilege in that we are proud and fortunate to be British. Whichever route we have taken, we are all very proud and fortunate, given the other places in the world where we could be. However, in the legal sense at least, in a number of cases—not all, but including those that the Government are attempting to deal with in Part 1—citizenship is a right. The Government’s intention seems clear in some of the early clauses to rectify previous injustices and to confer rights on people who should have them. It would be a terrible shame to do this and then to make the right illusory or difficult to access on the basis of a financial bar, particularly for children.
Noble Lords have approached this in slightly different ways, and different options have been made available in this raft of amendments for the Government to look at between now and Report. I urge Ministers, with all the controversy that I fear is inevitably coming on subsequent clauses, to see what they might do in relation to the rights that they are conferring here, if not to citizenship rights and fees more generally.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, there is obviously strong feeling on this issue across the House. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the work that she has put into this over the years. It is an important campaign. I sympathise with all the remarks that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others. This is an interesting and important issue. The problem is that the solution proposed does not work.
Very often, in these sorts of debates, it is proposed that the cost be related to the cost of registration or some aspect of that. The difficulty is that the cost can be manipulated. We never know what can go into the cost of producing a particular form or what overheads are involved. This is the difficulty; I have seen it again and again. In the end, the object is subverted by people manipulating the cost in such a way that they get the result they wanted in the first place.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh is right that we need some clarity from the Government in saying exactly what their proposals are in this area. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister replies and on Report we will get more clarity on this issue. I fully agree with the principle of what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is putting forward. The difficulty is with the suggestion that it should, first, be in primary legislation, with the inflexibility that it brings; and, secondly, that it is related specifically to the cost of registration, which can be manipulated. That is my concern and I hope the noble Baroness, who is about to rise to her feet with a charming smile on her face, will understand what I am saying.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his support of the principle, but is he suggesting that the Home Office would manipulate the cost in this way? The figure that we have is a Home Office figure. The Home Office tells us how much it costs to administer it, and therefore it seems reasonable that the fee should be linked to that. Ideally, I would like there to be no fee for this either, but that might be pushing things too far. Certainly, we are arguing for no fees for those who are in local authority care, but it is a Home Office figure, not a figure per person who is registering.
Lord Horam (Con)
I appreciate that perhaps “manipulate” was the wrong word. I simply meant that events and costs can change over time. If you have it in an Act of Parliament, you cannot change it; you introduce inflexibility, which may in some instances work against you. Often the case is put forward that this is the right way to do it; I have seen a number of these instances, but it never works.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Forgive me, but is the noble Lord agreeing with me that, in relation to citizenship rights that the Government are seeking to confer on those who should have them, there should not be a fee at all?
Lord Horam (Con)
I am sorry, but I did not quite follow the noble Baroness’s point.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Perhaps I can clarify. We all agree that we should know what the figure is. We are also seeking clarification from the Government Benches on why the fee is almost double the cost of processing the work. That is where there is a bit of a mismatch, if I have understood Members correctly.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, that there is no suggestion of putting a figure in the legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is suggesting that there should be no fee at all, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, does not mention any numbers at all in her amendment.
Lord Horam (Con)
You may not have a number, but costs can change from year to year; that is the point.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Absolutely, and I understand that that might be the case, but that is not the essence of either of the noble Baroness’s amendments. If I have not explained it by the end of what I have said, I am sure that the noble Lord will come back to me.
We support all these amendments, and I am grateful to Amnesty and many others for their briefings. As we have heard, and as the Explanatory Notes explain, Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 7 are aimed at ending anomalies in British nationality law, such as allowing women as well as men to pass on citizenship at the time of birth, including where the parents are not married. They also aim to allow the Secretary of State to grant citizenship where a person failed to become a British citizen and/or a British Overseas Territories citizen because of an historical legislative unfairness, such as an act or omission by a public authority or other exceptional circumstances—the Windrush injustices come to mind. But all these measures come to nothing if those entitled to citizenship cannot afford to pay the required fees to correct the injustice; hence Amendments 3 to 7, 18 and 19, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mcintosh of Pickering. The Government accept that applicants have been unfairly treated, but they then continue to treat them unfairly by charging, in many cases, prohibitively high fees.
I pay tribute to the sustained and tireless work of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, on this issue, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who summarised previous debates in the House so well. Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, takes a slightly less generous approach than the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, but one perhaps more likely to be accepted, ensuring that the Home Office could charge only cost price for citizenship—still a considerable amount of money—or less in the case of children if the family cannot afford it.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I take this opportunity to clarify what is says: it says that no person may be charged a fee that is “higher than”. It is not saying that it should be the cost price. Given that, every year, the Home Office must look at the fees, I do not see that there is a problem. I am sorry to interrupt.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am very grateful for that important clarification. The cost price is the maximum that should be charged, not the actual cost that should be charged.
There may be some difficulty around whether there is to be a means test, as implied by subsection (3), but the important addition to the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mcintosh—subsection (4) —is the requirement for the Secretary of State to raise awareness of the right to be registered as a British citizen or British Overseas Territories citizen. As Amnesty rightly points out, thousands of children grow up in the UK excluded from their citizenship rights because they are unaware that they are without British citizenship and need to exercise their right to be registered.
Citizenship should not be an optional extra. It is the right to have rights. It is not, as the Minister said on the previous group, a privilege. It is a right that these people have. It is also likely to make those who acquire it feel more included, and more likely to be loyal to this country, its laws, values and traditions. It is not just of value to those who acquire it but to everyone in the UK, and, as such, the cost of acquiring it should not fall solely on the applicant but on society as a whole.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I express our support for the amendments in this group. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raise a simple and crucial point. The intention of this part of the Bill, at least its early clauses, is to remove barriers for those who have been unjustly denied citizenship. To then present a barrier to that citizenship in the form of fees for accessing those withheld rights raises obvious problems. This is particularly, and one would hope undeniably, the case for those who would and should have been automatically granted citizenship if it were not for outdated injustices impacting their mother or the marital status of their father.
What has so far been missing from the Government is clarity on this issue. I understand that in Committee in the Commons, the Minister would not directly answer questions as to whether fees will be charged. I hope we may fare a little better today, with the noble Lord the Minister—if that is who responds—telling the House whether the Government intend to charge people to access these routes. Is the intention no fees, fee waivers in some cases, reduced fees from what we have now, or the continuation of existing fees? When and how will this be made clear? In the Commons, the Minister suggested that this was more appropriately dealt with in secondary legislation, but why should clarity not be provided in the Bill in relation to this key issue?
I express too our support for Amendment 13, in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, with notable cross-party support from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. As has been said, to say that my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett has been tenacious on this issue would be the understatement of the year; she has been rather more than that.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend addresses a current fee policy that charges people who have the right to register for citizenship exorbitant amounts to do so. As has been said, the amendment does not ask the Government to scrap the fee for application; it simply requires the fee not to be higher than the actual cost of the registration process. As has been said, this means it could be fixed at a considerably lower level or there could be no fee at all.
In particular, I add our strong support for measures to reduce the cost for children to register their citizenship, which they have as much right to access as any Member of this House, and to remove the cost completely, certainly for children in our care. Although the Government have repeatedly resisted this change, it is not without Cabinet support, as has been said. After all, the Health Secretary has described the fees as
“a huge amount of money to ask children to pay”.
I repeat that these costs are levied against children who are born here, grew up here and go to school here but who, unlike their classmates, are not automatically British at birth. Surely it is the will of this Parliament and our nationality law that those children are entitled to citizenship after certain conditions are met. But, in reality, that right is being denied for at least some—probably many—because it is just too expensive for them to access. The Government have already been asked for information on the numbers who have been denied citizenship on the basis that the fees are too high. I am not sure whether we are going to get a response to that point.
There has been some discussion about the legal position. As has been said, in February last year the Court of Appeal, in referring to the best interests of the child, ruled that the child citizenship fee, at over £1,000, is unlawful. That had also been determined earlier by the High Court. A number of noble Lords commented that, instead of using the obvious vehicle of this Bill on citizenship to rectify the issue, the Government have argued—as I understand it—that they want to await a further ruling in the Supreme Court.
Finally, I admit my surprise that, in the Commons, the government Minister claimed that this issue of the cost of registering citizenship was
“not a matter for the Bill.”—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 19/10/21; col. 165.]
This part of the Bill is about access to citizenship. I question how the Government can say that this issue, which has been raised many times across both Houses and with cross-party support, should not be regarded as a matter for this Bill. I hope we have a helpful response from the Government when they now reply.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester speaking on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for tabling Amendment 13; and to my noble friend Lady McIntosh for tabling Amendments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 18 and 22 on fees charged for applications for British citizenship and British Overseas Territories citizenship. My noble friend the Minister would also like to place on record her thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for engaging with her on this subject in various meetings.
I first turn to the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. You will be aware of the importance that application fees play in the funding of the migration and borders system, which has been noted in this debate, and that this income is vital to reduce the reliance on taxpayer funding and run a sustainable immigration system. Immigration and nationality fees are set in fees regulations, which are laid before Parliament and subject to the negative procedure. I hope that answers a number of noble Lords’ questions. If we were to remove or amend fees during the passage of the Bill, it would undermine the existing legal framework without proper consideration of the sustainability of the system and fairness to the UK taxpayer. Not only that, but it would create an alternative mechanism for controlling fees, which would reduce the clarity of the fee structure.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, noted, I am of course aware that similar provisions were considered in the other place. We are sympathetic to the view that a fee should not be charged where a person missed out on becoming a British citizen due to historical anomalies.
In answer to the specific questions of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, about those who cannot afford application fees, we have always provided for exceptions to the need to pay application fees for leave to remain in a number of specific circumstances. These exceptions ensure that the Home Office’s immigration and nationality fees structure complies with international obligations and wider government policy.
The subject of children in government or local authority care also came up. The Government do cater for children and their well-being. There are a number of exceptions to application fees, which protect the most vulnerable, including young people who are in the care of a local authority and applying for limited or indefinite leave to remain.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that there is a difference between leave to remain and citizenship? We are talking about citizenship, and the courts were very clear about the importance of citizenship. Please do not rerun the argument that leave to remain is as good as citizenship, because it is not.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Of course I accept the distinction. There is no arguing about that at all.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, raised the point that the provisions in this Bill are about righting historical wrongs, and I assure the Committee that it remains our intention to continue to adopt the approach of not charging fees in instances where unfairness or injustice has occurred. But as I tried to outline above, this is not a matter for the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Horam noted, it should be remedied through secondary legislation in line with other changes to immigration and nationality fees, as far as applications for British citizenship are concerned. Administration of British Overseas Territories citizenship applications is a matter for the overseas territories. We have consulted with them about the new nationality provisions; that applies to all the amendments except Amendment 13.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I apologise to the noble Lord. On the previous point about regulations for fees, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in fact anticipates regulations. It limits the amount of fees that can be paid, but does not seek to use primary legislation to set the specific fee.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
If we were to remove or amend fees during the passage of this Bill—I have said this before—it would undermine the existing legal framework, without proper consideration of the sustainability of the system.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Will the Minister clarify what he just said? The existing legal framework has itself been undermined by a decision of the High Court. Is that not something we now need to rectify? From the expression on the Minister’s face, I think he is coming to that and I am grateful to him. To return to the point that has been repeatedly made about not specifying the amount of money in the Bill, this amendment does not do that. It seeks to create a context in which fees can be charged, in which the cost is no more than the administrative cost. The point the noble Lord made about taxpayers is dealt with in this amendment. I hope he will concede that and, when he does, will he confirm the remarks by the previous Home Secretary that what is being charged at the moment is
“a huge amount of money”?
Is that the view of the current Home Secretary, the right honourable Priti Patel?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, that it is a lot of money is not in dispute. I am coming to the part that deals with the various reviews and the High Court judgment, so I hope the noble Lord will bear with me for a second. I think this will address his other questions.
Amendment 13 was put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I note that this new clause is identical to one considered in the other place. That the noble Baroness has put it to this Committee to consider leaves us in no doubt about the strength of feeling on this matter, and this debate has reinforced that.
Proposed new subsection (2) would prevent the Secretary of State charging a fee to register as a British citizen or British Overseas Territories citizen if the child is being looked after by a local authority. I just mentioned that as well. The Government already have waivers in place, which I referred to, that will allow any child looked after by their local authority, irrespective of nationality, to apply for both limited and indefinite leave to remain, which I accept is not the same citizenship, without being required to pay application fees. This ensures that children in local authority care can access leave to remain, and the benefits of living, working and studying in the UK, without having to pay a fee.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The noble Lord acknowledges that leave to remain is not the same as citizenship. When we last discussed this, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, accepted that this is not an argument that this House will accept. Please do not keep putting that argument, because it does not wash here.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I assure the noble Baroness that I am not going to try it again today.
Proposed new subsection (4) would require the Secretary of State to take steps to raise awareness of rights under the British Nationality Act 1981 to be registered as a British citizen or British Overseas Territories citizen among people possessing those rights. The Government publish information about becoming a British citizen on GOV.UK and we are committed to ensuring that such information is fully accessible by all.
Going on to the Supreme Court, pretty much every speaker has alluded to the fact that child citizenship fees have been the subject of a legal challenge brought forward by the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, and that this litigation has not yet concluded. We await the final judgment of the Supreme Court hearing, which took place on 23 and 24 June 2021, so that we can take proper account of the Supreme Court’s views. I believe that judgment is due next week, to confirm what I think has also been said here. In the meantime, the Home Office will continue to charge the fees set out in the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am very sorry to interrupt yet again, but I pointed out that the appeal that has gone to the Supreme Court is a completely separate legal point from the one that requires the Home Office to carry out a best interests review. Why do the Government keep putting this argument when it has been over a year since the judgment? Why can they not produce the best interests review now? It has nothing to do with the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I was just coming to that.
The Government are currently carrying out a Section 55 assessment, in tandem with the best interests review, in relation to the child registration fees. I cannot predict the outcome of that assessment, but that does not necessarily mean that the fees will change. I cannot give the noble Baroness the assurance she seeks on when it will be published, but the reviews are ongoing.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I cannot answer that, I am sorry. I will write on that.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I promise not to intervene again, but before the noble Lord leaves this point, is he not inviting the Committee to be like Don Quixote and to tilt at imaginary windmills? As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, pointed out, this is not the substance of the continuing action in the Supreme Court. The question of the cost of the fees was dealt with by the High Court. The Home Office lost. Surely that is the issue that should be laid to rest in these proceedings.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, they are all part of the same debate. As I said, I cannot pre-empt the Supreme Court’s decision or the outcome of the ongoing review, for which I obviously apologise. I would like to give him the answer he seeks, but I cannot.
Lord Deben (Con)
When the court has said that this is illegal, why do the Government not accept what the court has said? Or are the Government setting themselves up against the court and deciding that it is not illegal? If it is illegal, it should be changed at once.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, with respect to the noble Lord, we are awaiting the further judgment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry, but the lawyers behind this are very clear that these are completely separate legal points. The people who appealed the Court of Appeal’s judgment were not appealing in relation to the best interests of the child. The Government accepted the best interests of the child judgment a year ago. Why do we still not have the best interests review? As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, surely the Government should have acted immediately once they accepted that it was unlawful to charge this fee without taking account of the best interests of the child.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I said, I do not have the answer to why it has taken a year, but I will write to the noble Baroness and all noble Lords who have expressed an interest in this subject to try to explain.
Having said all that, I hope you understand that I cannot comment on the Supreme Court’s judgment. We remain of the view that it is the right course of action to wait until the judgment—I am sorry to labour the point. Accordingly, for the reasons I have given, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, first, we do not address each other as “you”. I know that the Minister is new to the House, but we do not use that term.
Secondly, there is a difference between an on/off decision about whether to charge a fee, as suggested by the Baroness in her amendments, and interfering with the current system, where the fee level is set by regulations. They are two different issues.
Thirdly, the noble Lord kept talking about interfering with the existing legislative framework. That is our job. We interfere with the existing legislative process by passing legislation. That is a nonsense argument.
Finally, the noble Lord talked about fees being waived in exceptional circumstances. People do not apply to register their right to British citizenship and then, when they take a look at what the fees are, say, “There’s absolutely no way that we can go ahead with this. We’re not even going to apply.” The fee being waived in exceptional circumstances does not even arise. Does the noble Lord not accept that?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The noble Lord said something about how the system relies on these fees. Could he clarify what he means? I hope he does not mean the immigration system, which is often referred to, because we are not talking about immigration here. Many of these children were born in this country.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I apologise for my inadvertent use of the word “you”. I feel suitably admonished. My apologies. To answer that question, it is the migration and borders system.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry, but that is irrelevant, because this is not about immigration. It is about the right to register for citizenship for children who have been born here or who otherwise have lived most of their lives here.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who contributed to this debate. I thank my noble friend for his courteousness in giving as full a reply as he is able to at this time.
I acknowledge the indefatigable campaigning skills of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the work they have done. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for sharing the concerns of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and his work in this regard.
I will focus on one particular aspect of my noble friend’s reply. I will not get involved in the best interests review because that is a separate argument. We need a very clear undertaking that, if the Supreme Court is to rule on the appeal as soon as next week, the Government will come forward and let us know what the scale of fees will be. I accept that the amendments I have put forward are the more radical. They say that the fees should be waived for all the reasons given during the debate: they are proving a barrier to children who, as the Government Benches and the Minister have agreed—I welcome that—should be welcomed, and citizenship should be awarded to them provided they meet the conditions. I do not think that a fee of £400 more than the cost of the work being done is satisfactory. It is unacceptable.
In the words of the Law Society of Scotland and of the Constitution Committee, I urge the Government to clarify their intention on the amount of fees to be charged under the relevant clauses—Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 7—after the Supreme Court judgment is announced, and to come forward with an amendment in this regard before Report, otherwise I will feel obliged to retable the amendments. At this moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I probably should have consulted my absolutely authentic book of words, but I believe it is now clear that we wish to resume the Committee at a convenient moment after 2.15. I think I must have had a particularly bad night, and I do apologise to the House—no sympathy required—for the slight confusion. We will now take the lunchtime business.
Draft Revision of the Highway Code
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
That this House regrets the draft Revision of the Highway Code because, despite making important changes to protect road users from harm, Her Majesty’s Government has failed sufficiently to educate the public on the changes.
Relevant document: 24th Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I was so sorry to have missed the earlier debate in full: it looked very exciting—and I rather think that this debate might be exciting as well. There might be quite a lot of opposition.
In spite of having tabled a regret Motion, I am, in fact, fully in favour of these changes, and I congratulate the Government on their foresight in actually bringing them in to make our roads safer. It is absolutely brilliant. I wholeheartedly welcome the changes to the Highway Code. They try to create a situation on our roads where those who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger that they may pose to others. That means that a cyclist should assume responsibility for the safety of those walking; and a driver has greater responsibility to look out for those cycling, horse-riding and walking. [Interruption.] Shush!
It means that car drivers do not turn at junctions when someone is waiting to cross the road—although I have to say that I thought that was the rule already, and I always stepped out fearlessly, scowling at the drivers. So I am glad that that change is being made. It means that drivers should not cut across people on cycles and horse-riders travelling straight ahead when the drivers are turning at a junction. It means that drivers use the “Dutch reach”, using their left hand to open the door, which makes the driver look over their shoulder to check for nearby road users.
All this is common sense, so I am quite curious about what people perceive as the problem. In fact, of course, the answer is that many drivers believe that might is right: the bigger your vehicle, the more right of way you have. In the UK, drivers are still buying bigger and more polluting vehicles. These are safer vehicles—but only for them, the drivers. Road casualties have fallen a lot over the past three decades, but that is because far fewer car drivers are being killed or injured, because cars are safer for their drivers. The number of pedestrians killed or injured in busy cities such as London has plateaued rather than declined. We made safer vehicles but we did not create safer roads.
Many drivers think that they are beyond the law. In 2018, a staggering 540 people were injured or killed every week in Britain. That is the most phenomenal cost in all sorts of ways. It costs the NHS; it costs the emergency services; it costs social services to mop up after these collisions and injuries, some of which of course are life-changing. We have lawless roads, and the reason for that is that road crime is not treated in the same way as regular crime. I have always supported our amazing traffic police; they do an incredible job against the odds. They make the most astonishing number of arrests because, when they see an illegal car moving around and they stop them, they quite often find that the drivers are criminals: they have drugs and weapons and all sorts of stuff in their car.
The problem is that many drivers will pay as much attention to these changes in the Highway Code and the guidelines as Boris Johnson did to the Covid rules. Our only hope is a massive publicity campaign to convince the majority of people that being a responsible driver or a responsible cyclist—or even a responsible pedestrian—is a matter of courtesy, caring and common sense. We need the same energy that went into the TV ads for the Green Cross Code, drink-driving or “clunk-click”. Without that, I am worried that these changes will escalate injuries on the road. Pedestrians will assert their right to cross the road at a side junction, and car drivers or cyclists will not stop. Pedestrians will be in the right, but that will not stop them being hurt.
These new measures need immediate publicity, including notices, for example, sent with every notification that drivers receive. I found out about these changes only by accident, and if I, who care a lot about road safety and road danger, found out about them only by chance, there are going to be an awful lot of people who have not heard about them yet. So I appeal to Ministers to spend the money to make these Highway Code changes relevant and noisy. I hope they will be a small step towards changing the culture of lawless roads, which leaves so many grieving for lost family and friends and many thousands suffering from life-changing injuries. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate and on so ably setting out the changes, on which I will not elaborate. It is not entirely clear whether cyclists or drivers of e-scooters will be covered by these changes as well, so I hope that the Minister might address that in her reply. Does she agree that one of the difficulties of the present Highway Code—and, in particular, with these current changes—is that cyclists can, on occasion, display insufficient regard for other road users. I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said about insufficient awareness.
I speak from the vantage point of a rural dweller who travels on country lanes a lot by car rather than by bicycle, particularly in North Yorkshire and County Durham. What concerns me is that, if I understand the Highway Code changes correctly and cyclists are to be asked to cycle in the middle of a country lane, it is going to be impossible for other road users to pass them safely. I want to flag this up to my noble friend the Minister, since in the pubs and tea rooms of North Yorkshire people will talk of little else until these come into effect. It would be helpful to know whether that is the case. Also, with regard to cycle lanes in cities, is it the case that cyclists are now requested not to use them if they do not feel safe but to revert to using the lane?
Finally, my noble friend is aware of my Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, extending the Road Traffic Act 1988 to include the offences of causing death by dangerous cycling, causing serious injury by dangerous cycling and causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling. The reason why I raise this in the context of the Highway Code is to ask whether we require primary legislation to make these changes. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State announce that the Government are now prepared to make these changes. Do we need legislation? Can I lay my Bill to rest, or do we actually require primary legislation? If so, when do the Government intend to bring that legislation forward?
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, as a former Secretary of State for Transport and a keen cyclist, I very much welcome the new Highway Code and congratulate my noble friend and her colleagues in the department on producing it. It makes a very sensible adjustment in terms of the trade-off between pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders on the one hand and those driving cars and motor vehicles on the other. As such, it goes with the grain of the Government’s overall transport policy of promoting sustainable forms of transport. My only reservation, which has already been touched on, is not about the measures themselves but about the information vacuum that has been filled by some inaccurate press reporting, which I will come to in a moment.
Four years ago the Government committed to revising the Highway Code to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Cycling UK, along with Living Streets and others, put forward proposals that were then refined by the snappily named Highway Code review stakeholder focus group. These went out to consultation, and what is before us basically reflects those proposals.
I welcome the principle that those using the roads in vehicles with a greater potential to endanger others have a greater responsibility to avoid doing so, which seems to me to be self-evident. I welcome the advice to cyclists to stay away from the edge of the road and from potholes and parked cars. This has actually been the advice given to cyclists for the past 16 years in the government-backed Bikeability training scheme, but it has only just made it into the Highway Code. It does not advise cyclists to pedal in the middle of the road or to ride two abreast all the time, but it does say that that can happen in certain situations when it is safer to do so.
On cycle lanes, which I welcome—indeed, I successfully campaigned for the first one in Hyde Park in the 1970s—perhaps cyclists should be encouraged to use them where we have them. I know that car users are irritated to find cyclists on the road when there is a parallel cycle lane. The relevant rule 140 says:
“Bear in mind that cyclists are not obliged to use cycle lanes or cycle tracks.”
Perhaps an additional few words could have been added, saying, “But they are strongly advised to do so, not least for their own safety.” Related to that, could my noble friend alert local authorities to the opportunity to redesign junctions crossed by cycle tracks, giving them priority over vehicles turning across them?
My concern, shared by others, is that so far there has been an inadequate public awareness campaign to publicise these changes. We have seen stories that drivers will be fined £1,000 for opening a door with the wrong hand, which simply are not true. I welcome the proposed factual awareness campaign. I would be grateful if my noble friend could perhaps concede that there could have been more publicity before the scheme came into effect—as happened, for example, with the publicity before the Covid regulations were passed, so there are precedents. Can she say a little more about the timing and the budget for phases 1 and 2 of the public awareness campaign?
Against that background, I very much welcome the new Highway Code.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for securing this debate. As has been mentioned, this statutory instrument enables the proposed revision of the Highway Code aimed to improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders when using the highway, but 71% of the members of IAM RoadSmart, the UK’s largest road safety charity, feel that it will increase conflict.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this important issue. It is not usual for noble Lords to claim in debate that they do not know what they are talking about but that is the position I find myself in. This is despite being, I think, the only person in either House who is an HGV driving instructor, albeit out of date. I will speak from the perspective of a vocational driver.
Yesterday, I tried to obtain a copy of the new Highway Code from WHSmith in Petersfield. I was told that new copies were not due in until April; they had none of the old. I then tried to download an online version but could find only the existing code and the amendments to it, not some form of PDF or the like that would show me the whole code, complete with graphics. Even your Lordships’ Library could not do better and we are grateful for the briefing that it has supplied.
Outside your Lordships’ House, I have detected considerable concern about the new and/or amended rules. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to allay some of that. It is important to read these new provisions in the context of the whole code and with the benefit of the excellent and clear graphics that we have come to expect in it. We do not have that, which is why I claim not to know what I am talking about. Most motorists will be in the same position, yet the code comes into operation on Saturday, if I understand matters correctly.
Notwithstanding my limitations, I have a few points to make, which are shared by many who I talk to. Ever since I first drove an HGV in about 1976, I have recognised, as I was taught, that there is a hierarchy of road users. The HGV drivers were at the top while pedestrians and children were at the bottom, and most vulnerable. I am therefore perfectly content with the new hierarchy. It seems that the whole point of vocational or professional driving is to ensure that the needs of other road users are respected and met. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made the point that might is not right; she is perfectly correct, and I was always trained and taught that HGV drivers should not abuse their bulk or weight.
On priority for pedestrians at junctions when a vehicle is turning off the main road, it seems that the Minister has placed an imaginary zebra crossing at every such junction. However, a zebra crossing has several other features to enhance safety. There are the flashing yellow lamps and the zig-zag lines that have the effect of prohibiting waiting, unloading, parking or overtaking. When I was training HGV drivers to negotiate a zebra crossing, I would make sure that they identified the hazard in good time and ensured that there was no possibility of any pedestrian getting to the crossing before they did. This is easy enough, because of the layout that I have referred to. There should never be a need for heavy braking, let alone an emergency stop, on the approach to a zebra crossing. However, the same cannot be said for these junctions and, not having been able to study the code properly, I and others are deeply concerned. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can provide reassurance.
Turning to the new rules regarding cyclists, I have always been trained to respect cyclists and take special care with them. As your Lordships would expect, I always do so. I am currently undertaking a lot of driving on rural A roads and unclassified roads. I understand my travel time to within a few minutes on a 45-minute journey. When there is no possibility of safely passing a cyclist or a group of them, I will hang back so that they can enjoy their ride without feeling under pressure. When conditions are more propitious, I will move closer and overtake safely, giving them plenty of room. This is what they expect of me.
Meeting the needs of cyclists, which I am happy to do, never causes me measurable delay on my journeys. Since the Conservative-led Government so wisely increased the speed limit for HGVs on a single carriageway, neither do HGVs. What does cause significant delay is a few older motorists driving at far below the prevailing speed limit. In my opinion, they would fail if on a driving test for failing to make normal progress. Not only can I not pass them safely, HGVs cannot do so either but that is not the problem for today. My concern is that the side-by-side rule for cyclists, which I hope my noble friend the Minister will carefully explain, will have the same effect as a car being driven far too slowly and without the possibility of a safe overtake. It could not only increase journey times but seriously damage the relationship between responsible and skilled motorists and cyclists, as pointed out by my noble friend Lady Hodgson.
I have one technical question for the Minister regarding the code but I expect that she will have to write to me. The code makes it clear that a warning triangle should not be placed behind a broken-down car, especially on a motorway. There must be a good reason for this but it is contrary to advice, and sometimes to the law of many countries on the continent. Our continental friends do not get everything right in terms of road safety. Can my noble friend please write to me and other noble Lords speaking to explain the reasoning for this rule? My greatest concern is the non-availability of the Highway Code in its complete form, so that we could understand what is meant in the whole document.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for bringing this debate to the House today. I agree completely with the concerns expressed by those noble Lords who have already spoken in it. Having said that, of course one welcomes an update to the Highway Code. I welcome the reordering and clarification of the hierarchy of road users and the concept of basing it on vulnerability. I also welcome that there is a precise spelling out of the rules on cycling and safety.
However, it is surreal that e-scooters are not mentioned in this document. I realise that the Minister will tell us that the Government are waiting for the pilot project results but, in the meantime, tens of thousands of them are out there on our pavements and driving heedlessly through red lights. There is a great deal, which is welcome, on how to deal with horses. I live in an urban area; I have lived in my house for 40 years and cannot recall ever seeing a horse walk down the road, but every day I see dozens of illegal scooters going down it. It is all the more concerning because rule 42 refers specifically to mobility scooters being allowed on pavements. That is right, of course, but given the present information vacuum it is likely to mislead people. Even a simple restatement of the current rules—that e-scooters are illegal, except in pilot areas—would have been a welcome clarification.
I also share the concern that, as I read it, having spent many millions of pounds on developing cycle lanes, which was greatly welcome, cyclists do not actually have to use them. One of the great things about cycle lanes is that, as a motorist, I can say that you know where the cyclist should be, so you know how to use them. The fact that cyclists may now feel that they can, rightly, go to other parts of the road is a matter of concern.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for initiating this debate. The changes to the Highway Code are a welcome addition to help cyclists, who are feeling increasingly unsafe. However, without any effort to publicise these changes, they risk being entirely meaningless and, indeed, unsafe. With the changes now imminent, the Government should be leading a national campaign to make the public aware of the new code, as part of a comprehensive national safety campaign. Instead, Ministers are missing in action.
The justification for these changes is in the Government’s own data, which reveals that 66% of cyclists think that roads are too dangerous. As part of the transition to net zero, we all need people to cycle more often than drive, but clearly more people than ever are being put off doing so because of the risk. More and more cyclists are now being killed or seriously injured on UK roads. In 2020, the number killed or seriously injured was 4,320, with the number killed being 140. This is having a knock-on effect on the number of people prepared to bike, given that 66% of people thinking that it is too dangerous to cycle is a 30% increase on a decade ago.
It is worth noting that the same survey, the National Travel Attitudes Study, found that most would be more prepared to cycle if new infrastructure was introduced. Some 55% said that segregated cycle paths would make them more likely to cycle, while 49% said the same for well-maintained road surfaces. This shows that it is entirely within the Government’s gift to encourage people to move from driving to cycling. Unfortunately, the Government are still refusing to release the remainder of the £2 billion of funds promised for active travel.
Although the new changes to the Highway Code are welcome, few people are aware of them. The AA has conducted research that has found that many drivers have no intention of looking at the new rules, while Cycling UK warned of the dangers of a lack of official publicity—no wonder, given that there seems to be no concerted effort to make the public aware of these changes. In response to a Written Question by the shadow Transport Secretary last month, a Minister responded that an awareness-raising campaign would not begin until February, with a broader behaviour change campaign later in the year.
I have discovered in recent days that even those who actively seek to learn about these changes will struggle to do so. I have had a similar experience to that of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. On Monday, I visited the Waterstones bookshop in Trafalgar Square to purchase a copy of the new Highway Code—I thought that, if it is anywhere, it will be there—only to be told that none was available in any store and, further, I was advised that none was expected until April. Can the Minister confirm whether the public are currently able to purchase a copy of the updated Highway Code anywhere?
Although the amendments have been published, I, like the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was unable to find the full amended version of the Highway Code online. Can the Minister confirm that this has not been published online? I reckon myself to be a black belt in googling—that is the only way that I can survive in this role—so I tried again last night just to make sure that it had not crept in in the previous 48 hours. I went on GOV.UK, where, if you simply click on “Highway Code”, you find a Highway Code and you think, “Oh, that’s it”, until you notice that that Highway Code was last revised in 2015. I persevered and moved around that site and I was treated to eight newspaper-type articles about how the new code was changed, but nowhere could I find a copy of the code so that I could view the whole thing holistically.
It is important to understand that this revision is not just a tweaking of the present rules, responding to the changing world of electric scooters et cetera—I wrote that before I discovered in this debate that it makes no reference to electric scooters. It is about—this is crucial—a fundamental change, requiring road users to do things differently. It is not a tweak or a refinement; it is about fundamental change. This is not being adequately communicated.
Consider a scenario where a well-informed cyclist who believes that he or she has the right of way meets an ill-informed HGV driver who believes that he has the right of way. This is exactly the scenario set out in the code, where the cyclist gets run over. The cyclist presumes that they have the right of way to proceed and the HGV driver believes that he has the right to turn. The outcome could be catastrophic: another cyclist death. Were such deaths taken into account in the decision not to prepare a full impact assessment? Given the department’s lamentable performance in communicating the changes, surely the scenario that I have described is credible, as are many deaths in the next 10 weeks. These deaths will be the responsibility of the DfT and its leader, the Secretary of State.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for giving noble Lords the opportunity to discuss the Highway Code changes today. It has been a good debate with some very interesting contributions, which I will come to. I would first like to set out the Government’s position clearly so that we have a good framework from which to delve into some of the points raised.
I note at the outset there were some changes to the Highway Code just a few months ago which did not attract a debate, and it has not been republished since. Putting that to one side, for any changes there is a parliamentary process which needs to be gone through. At any time, they could be prayed against, in which case those changes would not happen. I could also imagine, had I started communicating this 40 days ago, noble Lords being very cross with me for communicating something Parliament had not yet agreed. There is definitely a balance, but the end of the 40-day period has now come almost to a close.
Noble Lords will note that only yesterday we issued a press note to stakeholders and the media, which essentially kicks off the process of informing and educating the road-using public. I agree with noble Lords that most people do not read the Highway Code; it is not where they get their information from at all. It is all about enabling us to communicate with trusted stakeholders and the public via the media and paid-for promotion, which is also part of what the Government intend to do.
Keeping our roads safe for everyone, in particular those most at risk on our roads, is one of my key priorities. The Highway Code and the rules therein are central to that mission. I noted that my noble friend Lady Hodgson said that the roads will be safe only if everyone obeys the rules. I agree with her; everyone must obey the rules. But I am the Roads Minister, so of course I would think that. That is for pedestrians and cyclists, but it is not just about obeying the rules—that is a very harsh way of looking at it. It is also about respect and consideration for other people travelling on the roads. I will come back to that in relation to rural roads, where I sometimes feel that the motorist feels they have the run of them.
At the heart of these changes is active travel: cycling and walking. The Government would like to increase the number of people doing both and these changes to the Highway Code should ensure that they can do so as safely and respectfully as possible, because everybody has the right to use the road. We want to make sure they do so in a safe, considerate and responsible manner. We want to encourage people to think about how they travel and choose more sustainable and active modes of it. One of the biggest barriers to people choosing to cycle or walk is safety, and the perception of safety. It is often due to the users of motor vehicles of whatever type who also choose to use the roads that that perception—or reality—of a slightly less safe environment comes to pass.
These proposed alterations to the Highway Code seek to improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders and make active travel an attractive alternative to using the car. However, they are in no measure anti-motorist. We had an enormous response; I think 21,000 people responded to the consultation and we believe around 60% were motorists. I think that motorists want a calm, respectful and law-abiding road network as well.
There are three key alterations in these changes. The first is on the hierarchy of road users, which was ably explained by my noble friend Lord Attlee. We are all cognisant that those people driving the heavier and faster vehicles are able to cause greatest harm. The second is clarifying the existing rules on pedestrian priority on pavements, and that drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross the road. Finally, we are strengthening guidance on safe passing distances when overtaking cyclists or horses. Guidance on safe passing distances has existed for quite some time—this is not a new invention. We have to look at a positive shift in road user behaviour.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will my noble friend permit me to intervene? I think the concern is this. I was pinged with the press notice, for which I am very grateful, because I subscribe. I would just like to flag up these two sentences:
“Many of the rules in the code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you’re committing a criminal offence. If you do not follow the other rules in the code, it can be used in evidence in court proceedings to establish liability.”
We are changing the law here, not the guidance.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
That is exactly what I am trying to say. A “should” or “should not” that is in the code can be used. Going back to my noble friend Lord Attlee’s point about an HGV and a cyclist going around the corner and having an incident, whoever is at fault, the fact that they were going against the Highway Code would be a factor if it were ever to reach court. But this is not necessarily about the changes—
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, it was not my point; I think it was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. But I would like to intervene and point out that an HGV driver is trained to never endanger a vulnerable road user. The only problem arises when the HGV driver, for one reason or another, is not aware of the vulnerable user’s position.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing that out. I apologise for assigning the wrong speaker to that point, but it remains the case that noble Lords should be cognisant about what the Highway Code is and is not, and what certain rules in there are or are not. Some reflect what the underlying law says, and others are in the code because they are guidance on how one operates the road system. I will not dwell on that further, otherwise I could go into a long treatise on road safety and how it works. Let us not do that, because I want to come back to communications.
We are going to use the free channels as much as possible, via the press notice and our trusted stakeholders, and we will then use the THINK! campaign. The code will come out over the weekend, once the parliamentary process has been completed. Therefore, our paid campaign will start in February; the noble Lord is quite right. It will be badged under the very successful THINK! campaign, and over half a million pounds has been targeted towards that. The communications plan has been tested with all trusted stakeholders. It is slightly different from the old days—the Clunk Click days—because, of course, audiences have massively atomised, so they may not see something on a terrestrial television network. Quite frankly, I have not heard of many of the channels we use either, but I am reassured that people actually watch them.
I turn very briefly to some of the points raised. On the timing of the communications, there is the initial hit in February. Obviously, we will continue with that and will have another burst as we head into the summer because that is when cycling becomes a greater issue.
Should e-scooters be allowed on British roads, we would revise the Highway Code accordingly.
I will come back to the issue of rural roads. I spoke to my noble friend Lady McIntosh yesterday about this, and she asked if I had ever driven on a rural road—yes, I have, and one of the things I am astounded by is the speed at which people travel on those roads. We know that they were never designed for cars. They started off as tracks from one village to another. Many vehicles hare along them at great speed, and they are some of our most dangerous roads in the country. I am afraid that if you cannot overtake a horse because it is on a rural road—I take my noble friend Lady Hodgson’s point that the horse rider might want to just move over periodically—you will just have to wait behind the horse. It is okay; nothing bad will happen. You should do that instead of trying to squeeze your way past and haring off into the distance on a very dangerous rural road. We have to calm down on those sorts of roads, because they are incredibly dangerous. They kill far more people than cyclists are killed. We really need to get back that respect for cyclists, horse riders, pedestrians—all the people who are out enjoying the countryside.
On my noble friend Lord Young’s point, I can say that we have recently revised LTN 1/20, which sets out how cycling infrastructure should be constructed. That will, of course, enable us to spend the money—about which I am going to write to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, because I sense that I am running out of time and the House has a Bill to be cracking on with.
I will very happily write with further details. On the point on the shortage of paper, I had no idea that that was the reason, but I am aware that we do not update the Highway Code in paper copy very often. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will be aware, we updated the Highway Code for the smart motorway changes. Again, we would not have reprinted it after that, but most people do not access the Highway Code via a printed copy.
I will certainly go back and look through Hansard, because so many good points were raised and I have not been able to cover them all. I am grateful to all noble Lords.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Before the noble Baroness sits down I ask that, in the letters she will undoubtedly write to us, she will address my very specific questions about budgets for publicity and for the police and local authorities to spread the word on this. Can she also clarify when the new information will have to be known by people taking the driving test written examination?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate, and I particularly commend the Minister. It is such a pleasure to agree with a government Minister and to hear her spirited defence of old and new regulations.
There are a lot of issues here and, of course, I disagree with quite a lot of what has been said. We always have to remember that car drivers are subsidised by the rest of us. They are subsidised by cyclists, pedestrians and, obviously, other car drivers. Please let us not think that car drivers have the right to do whatever they like on our roads.
There are too many issues to cover, but on the issue of cyclists killing other people and so on, that hardly ever happens. In fact, 99% of pedestrian deaths are from motor vehicles. Please let us not forget that. I was going to refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said, but the Minister corrected that. Cycle lanes are often dangerous, and the infrastructure has to be looked at.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, talked about the budget. That is quite important, because I think there is £500,000 at the moment, which will be nowhere near enough. I recommend that if government Ministers could get that out there and notify people on prime TV time—talking about this instead of cake—that would obviously help to spread the word.
The Government have been very slow to produce a draft of these changes. In fact, they were told back in July 2018 that there was a need for a public awareness campaign, yet the relevant people looking at it were given the details only a week ago.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his positive and sympathetic response. As somebody who does not cycle any more, because I walk, I am well aware of the dangers of cycling in London and other places, including rural areas, and I commend the Minister for saying that we should show some patience and courtesy. It is perhaps time that we all learned that. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Thursday 27th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (27 Jan 2022)
“Provision for Chagos Islanders to acquire British nationality
(1) Part 2 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (British overseas territories citizenship) is amended as follows.(2) After section 17H (as inserted by section 7), insert— “17I Acquisition by registration: descendants of those born in British Indian Ocean Territory(1) A person is entitled to be registered as a British overseas territories citizen on an application made under this section if they are a direct descendant of a person (“P”) who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of P’s birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory or, prior to 8 November 1965, in those islands designated as the British Indian Ocean Territory on that date.(2) An application under this section must be made before the date specified in subsection (3).(3) The specified date means—(a) in the case of a person aged 18 years or over on the date of coming into force of this section, five years after the date of coming into force of this section, or(b) in the case of a person under the age of 18 years on the date of coming into force of this section, before they reach the age of 23 years.(4) A person who is being registered as a British overseas territories citizen under this section is also entitled to be registered as a British citizen.(5) No charge or fee may be imposed for registration under this section.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow anyone who is descended from a person born before 1983 on the British Indian Ocean Territory to register as a British overseas territories citizen. They may also register as a British citizen at the same time. Both applications would be free of charge. The application must be submitted within 5 years, or in the case of a minor born before the date of coming into force, before they reach 23 years old.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, for their support for the amendment. The amendment would extend the right to register as citizens to the descendants of Chagossians exiled from their homeland, subject to a time limit. I am grateful to Rosy Leveque of BIOT Citizens for her help with it, and to Chagossian Voices for its briefing.
To understand the case for this amendment, a bit of history is necessary. Back in the 1960s and early 1970s, the inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago—a British Overseas Territory which became part of the British Indian Ocean Territory—were evicted by the then British Government to make way for a US airbase on Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands. They have never been allowed to return. Not only did they lose their homeland, but their grandchildren and other descendants have no right to British Overseas Territory citizenship and, therefore, to British citizenship. Only those born on the islands and the first generation born in exile have such a right. I should perhaps make it clear that the right to citizenship should not be confused with the quite separate right of return, which is not affected by this amendment, important as it is.
The Chagossians were deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles and now around 4,000 live in the UK, but because of the unjust citizenship rules many are undocumented and children have been and continue to be deported. Families have been broken up and communities are divided, as some members have access to citizenship rights while others do not. This has caused hardship for many and has aggravated the trauma associated with exile. The lack of citizenship rights has created insecurity and made it harder to integrate into local communities.
In the Commons, in Committee, the Minister, Tom Pursglove, expressed some sympathy for the case made for the extension of citizenship rights and acknowledged that
“the Chagossians present a unique case.”—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 4/11/21; col. 644.]
He said he would “reflect further”. It all looked rather hopeful but when the Conservative MP, Henry Smith, raised the issue on Report, what looked like a half-open door was slammed shut by the Immigration Minister, Kevin Foster, which was very disappointing. Mr Smith emphasised the anomalies created, the injustices caused and that we are talking about no more than a few hundred to the low thousands of people who would benefit. So far, BIOT Citizens has identified 500 descendants. What is at stake is a small concession but one that would make a huge difference to the lives of those affected. It would also have symbolic importance for a people who have lost their homeland through no fault of their own.
Mr Smith’s amendment was rejected in a single paragraph. There appear to be two strings to the Government’s case. The first is that the amendment
“would undermine a long-standing principle of British nationality law … under which nationality or entitlement to nationality is not passed on to the second and subsequent generations born and settled outside the UK and its territories, creating quite a major precedent.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/21; col. 258.]
I am sure noble Lords can spot what a specious argument this is in this context. The only reason the Chagossians in question do not meet this condition is because they are descended from people who were evicted against their will from a British Oversees Territory. Forced and continued exile prevents them from meeting these long-standing conditions. It is not clear that the Government really understand this, but as the Junior Minister acknowledged in Committee, it is “a unique case” so no precedent would be set, unless the Government have plans to evict others from their British Overseas Territory homelands. I hope and trust that, if the noble Baroness—I think it is the noble Baroness—the Minister has been briefed to use this argument, she will scrap it now.
The second government concern is more credible. They do not want to create an open-ended right in the way that the Commons amendment did, and I think that is reasonable. This amendment therefore creates a five-year time limit for applications, following the Windrush precedent in the British Nationality Act 1981. Those aged under 18 at the time of enactment will have up until the age of 23. I am offering the Minister an opportunity to add something positive, that would be widely welcomed, to a Bill that—with very few exceptions to be found in this part of it—has been widely condemned. If this particular way of capping entitlement is not to the Government’s liking I am, of course, open to discussions about alternative means, such as a generational cap. I very much hope that the Minister will accept the amendment or a revised version of it for Report. Is she willing to meet virtually with me and other signatories to the amendment and those advising me to discuss how we might proceed? I plan to return to the issue on Report to try to put right what Henry Smith MP correctly described as an “appalling injustice”. I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thoroughly endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, and I am very pleased to co-sign this amendment. In the first two groups that we discussed this morning, we talked a lot about righting injustices. This is an opportunity to right a gross historic wrong—a forced eviction and exile that was, indeed, ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2019.
I was one of those who raised this issue very briefly at Second Reading. I do not think the Minister referred to it in her response, although I know she had a lot of issues to cover. It should be noted, though, that the amendment in the other place from Henry Smith MP at Report stage, which the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to, had the sizeable support of 245 Members, displaying the strength of feeling about the trauma and hardship of the Chagossian community that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to.
The all-party group on Chagos is a strong and active group that has long campaigned to right, in so far as is possible, the wrongs of the 1960s when, having resisted independence from Mauritius, of which Chagos was part, Britain secretly acceded to an American request to make one of the islands, Diego Garcia, available on a long lease as a “communications hub”. Of course, it later became notorious as a site for rendition flights. Anyway, the then British Government of, I am afraid, Harold Wilson, detached Chagos from Mauritius and then emptied Chagos, chucking out its inhabitants. This appeared, apparently, to be compensation for the Americans for the UK declining to get involved in the Vietnam War.
The saga is littered with lies and about-face. The UK told the UN that the Chagos Islands had no permanent population and the Chagossians were merely contract labourers. The British Indian Ocean Territory—BIOT—comprising all the Chagos Islands was detached from Mauritius and, between 1968 and 1973, the entire population of Chagos was removed. Some 2,000 people were deported to Mauritius, some went to the Seychelles and some arrived in the UK, particularly in Crawley, perhaps because it is near Gatwick, in Sussex.
As was discussed this morning, the purpose of Part 1 of this Bill is to address long-standing discrimination in British nationality law. I put to the Committee that Amendment 11 fits perfectly in this context. The original appalling injustice of the late 1960s and early 1970s perpetrated against the Chagossians has been compounded ever since, not only by their continuing enforced exile from their homeland but by the deprivation of their descendants of their citizenship rights. Had they not been evicted but had stayed in BIOT, they would have passed British Overseas Territory citizenship from generation to generation and some would have had the entitlement to be registered as British citizens or at least benefited from the Home Secretary’s discretion to so register them.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, Ministers in the other place have provided no justification for resisting the rectification of this injustice suffered by the Chagossians. The Government simply rely, in a sense, on the injustice of eviction to perpetuate the injustice. Because we had chucked them out, they were not BIOT citizens and so they cannot benefit from any subsequent citizenship rights. The Government now have an opportunity with this new clause to make substantial amends—hardly complete amends—for the wrongs done half a century ago. I suggest that it is wrong to seek to assert that correcting the nationality law consequences of this wrong would create any wider precedent, as the noble Baroness said.
By the way, if anyone wants to read the history of the UK’s perfidious treatment of the Chagossians, I recommend this booklet of a lecture by Professor Philippe Sands QC entitled Chagos: The Last British Colony in Africa – A Short History of Colonialism, a Modern Crime Against Humanity? and I will give this to Hansard so it can correctly identify it. I urge the Minister to give a positive response.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading. I strongly support Amendment 11, which has cross-party support. I speak as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands.
My noble friend Lady Lister explained powerfully and clearly the position of this small number of people, whose ancestors were wrongly deported from their island homes and who have been caught up in big-power politics, denying them the basic human rights that we in your Lordships’ House enjoy. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, gave the whole context.
The fact is that, although all UK Governments agree that the exile of the Chagossians from their island homes 50 years ago was wrong and unjust, the present Government continue not to allow resettlement. They cite a range of reasons for continuing this injustice, including conservation, finance, feasibility, security and defence. This is irrespective of the fact that it is well known that the American base on Diego Garcia would not be threatened or impeded by resettlement on the 54 outer islands. Indeed, the UK Government committed in their 1965 Lancaster House agreement to returning the territory
“to Mauritius when no longer needed for defence purposes.”
The outer islands are not part of the defence framework. Conservation could be maintained by the Chagossians, as happens in other marine conservation areas, and there are various avenues for assistance with resettlement costs.
It is political will and respect for human rights that are lacking. This Government are acting in defiance of the UN charter on decolonisation and United Nations General Assembly resolutions, and contrary to the opinion of the International Court of Justice and the decision of the tribunal of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, in their obdurate refusal to countenance resettlement for this, I repeat, small number of people.
The all-party group strongly supports the international rule of law and the right of return. In respect of this amendment, which follows from all the events we have set out, we firmly believe that, until resettlement is permitted, Chagossians should not have to endure having loaded on them the further injustices that this amendment would remove: the separation of families, deportation and the unreasonable costs of excessive fees. The Government adopting this modest amendment, Amendment 11, would at least go some way to ameliorating the acknowledged injustice that Chagossians have endured by their exile.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, as I did this morning, I express great sympathy for the point of view expressed so eloquently and passionately by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. As she rightly said, the amendment moved in the other place was voted down because it contradicted one of our long-standing, century-long principles for who becomes a British citizen. However, as she pointed out, the new amendment deals with the point made in the other place by putting a limit on the applicability of the proposal, which is good. So we are in a better place than we were then. The noble Baroness also offered to talk, if possible, to see whether there is any other way forward on this problem.
I am also a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands. I have great sympathy for their position; it is indeed a terrible plight. An evil deed was done to those people. We are talking about perhaps only 500 people now in this context; there are more Chagossians in history, but there are only about 500 of them in this particular category at the moment.
Of course, the real villain here—my noble friend the Minister will be glad to know this—is not the Home Office; it is the Foreign Office, which, frankly, behaved disgracefully. When it examined this matter, the International Court of Justice voted 116 to six against us. For heaven’s sake, you can hardly have a bigger majority than that; I suppose you could have 192 to one or something—that is how many nations there are in the United Nations—but it was a comprehensive defeat. Not only that but, as previous speakers have pointed out, the United States Government are helpful on this matter, and the Mauritian Government have pointed out that they are willing to give the US Government a 99-year lease if they wish to carry on having a base on the island. Every base is covered. There really is no case for the Foreign Office to resist doing the right thing. Frankly, it is costing us in the international arena when we are so completely in the wrong on this issue.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Ludford and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, on laying this amendment. I was not familiar with this issue until it was brought to my attention, but I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to take it seriously and address it.
I understand that the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 granted British citizenship to Chagossians who were resettled, but only if they were born in the 13-year window from 1969 to 1982. This has left families divided. For example, Jean-Paul Delacroix was born in 1968, and is the oldest of his siblings. At the age of 64, he wants, but cannot obtain, British citizenship; his siblings can. Having been refused, he is now here illegally and cannot even work to support himself.
In 2017, my honourable friend in the other place, Henry Smith, introduced a Private Member’s Bill—which has still had only its First Reading—and then laid in the other place the amendment to the Bill that has been referred to by noble Lords. As has been said— I find it difficult to understand their argument—the Government’s rationale for rejecting Chagossians’ right to British nationality relies on the cause of the injustice while refusing to correct it. Having forcibly resettled 3,000 individuals at the time, the injustice seems to be being compounded by refusing the small number of people who want, and I would argue deserve, to be in receipt of citizenship that opportunity. This Bill represents a chance for the Government to act on a long-standing injustice.
Amendment 11 would correct the nationality law consequences of exiling the Chagossians. Only those born there or born in that 13-year window can currently claim citizenship, but the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would give the opportunity to all those who were born there. The five- year, time-limited window tries to address the Government’s concerns. Like my noble friend Lord Horam, I understand those concerns, but the Chagossians represent a unique case. It is hard to see this setting a precedent. I urge my noble friend the Minister to consider this concession before Report.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle signed the amendment and has asked me to speak in her place as she is unable to be here.
This is obviously a 50 year-old injustice, inflicted by the UK—by the Foreign Office, as the noble Lord, Lord Horam, suggests, so it might have been good to have a Minister from the Foreign Office here to answer our points. What was done to the Chagos Islanders—deprivation of their lands, dispossession of their community, chaos brought to individual lives—was not limited to one or two generations; it has gone on and on. True reparations would involve the right of return. This is not special circumstances or special treatment. This is justice that we can deliver, albeit very, very late. Simple justice ensures that we take responsibility for people whose lives we took control of without their consent. I hope the Minister can take this back and ensure that it becomes part of the Bill.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a founder member and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, a vice-chairman of the Chagos Islands All Party Parliamentary Group. Having once had the pleasure of meeting the Chagos Islanders based in Mauritius, I rise to strongly support this amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Horam, have explained, this issue is an international scandal for which the Government are entirely responsible.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I did not have the opportunity to speak at Second Reading and I apologise for that. I declare my interests in the register and want to clarify that I am speaking in a personal capacity, and I will keep my intervention very brief. I agree with every speech that has been made today, but I particularly want to reference some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Horam.
I gave a speech at the Mauritian Foreign Ministry in 2019 in advance of the United Kingdom’s court case. While my speech was wide-ranging about international affairs and Britain’s role in the world generally, I was astonished by the strength feeling that the people present, mainly civil servants working in the Foreign Office, had about this issue. They were not all affected by the Chagossians’ claims—some were, some were not—but there was a national sense of disbelief that a law-abiding, rules-abiding great power in the world was behaving in this shabby manner towards a very small number of people.
I want to pick up on one point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about the reason given by the Minister in the House of Commons as to why he would not support the amendment moved there. He said that it would overturn, and set a precedent over, years of British nationality law. My simple response to that is: the Government profess that we are increasingly bringing rights home, in terms of their assessment of the Human Rights Act and so on. But, as the noble Baroness knows very well, our courts are increasingly taking account of precedent with regard to Ministers’ intentions when they speak in both Houses of Parliament —and Parliament’s intentions when it decides to do whatever it decides to do.
So, if she has concerns similar to those expressed by the Minister in the House of Commons about setting precedent, all she would need to do when this Bill comes back to the Chamber on Report is to make it clear in her speech that she does not intend this Act—a humanitarian Act—to set a precedent in any other way. That is all she has do to reassure the House, and the courts will take account of that. I hope she will listen with great sympathy to the speeches on this matter across the House today, because that is what this small number of people deserve from us.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady Ludford, the Chagos Islanders were evicted by the UK Government in the late 1960s and early 1970s to make way for a US naval base, and they are still exiled from their homeland. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, there are two separate and very distinct issues here. The first, as the noble Lord quite rightly says, is giving the Chagos Islands back to the islanders, which is very much an issue for the Foreign Office. This amendment is about giving Chagos Islanders nationality, and that is very much the responsibility of the Home Office, not the Foreign Office. I would also say, in response to the last speaker and to the noble Lord, that century-long precedents are not necessarily good precedents.
One impact of the eviction has been to deprive descendants of their citizenship rights. The Chagos Islands remain a British Overseas Territory and, as we have heard, were it not for the eviction, they would have passed British Overseas Territories citizenship from generation to generation. In certain circumstances, they could have acquired entitlement to be registered as British citizens and, since 2002, they could have benefited from a general discretion from the Home Secretary to register as British citizens.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, said, the Government’s objection in the other place does not hold water. The situation of the Chagos Islanders is unique and, while the other measures in this part of the Bill to address historic injustices are welcome, they are incomplete without the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, which we wholeheartedly support. As the noble Baroness explained, it is narrow in scope, focused exclusively on the Chagos Islanders’ direct descendants and limited to a five-year window, either from the date the amendment comes into force or five years from when the eligible person turns 18. The Minister will have to do more than simply repeat the words of her colleague in the other place to convince noble Lords not to pursue this matter further on Report.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I would like to express our support for this new clause. I wish to be clear about its objectives and will read from the Member’s explanatory statement:
“This amendment would allow anyone who is descended from a person born before 1983 on the British Indian Ocean Territory to register as a British overseas territories citizen. They may also register as a British citizen at the same time. Both applications would be free of charge. The application must be submitted within 5 years, or in the case of a minor born before the date of coming into force, before they reach 23 years old.”
As we have heard, the proposed new clause is intended to rectify a long-standing injustice which impacts descendants of the Chagos Islanders who were forcibly removed from British Indian Ocean territory in the 1960s. I too wish to express my appreciation and admiration of all those who have been raising and pursuing this issue over a number of years, not least my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker—although I know they are not the only ones who have been working on behalf of the Chagos Islanders.
The issue has significant cross-party support, and the case for this change was powerfully made by a Member of the Minister’s own party in the Commons, Henry Smith MP, who was supported by Members across that House. The clause, as I have indicated, would extend the right to register for citizenship to the grandchildren and other descendants of this population, and it would, as has been pointed out, apply to only a small number of people.
In the Commons, the Minister’s response was not too encouraging, suggesting that this would be too significant a departure from existing law. However, he did say that the Government had heard the strong points made and would
“continue to consider what more we could do, particularly given the low uptake of the £40 million Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office fund designed to assist this diaspora community, and we will certainly be keen to look at that and, potentially, at how it could allow those people to settle here in the UK.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/21; col. 258.]
What consideration of this issue has since occurred across Government? What have Ministers settled on as to
“what more we could do”?
In recent years, we have raised significant concerns about this Government’s ongoing foreign and defence policy as regards the Chagos Islands. The Bill provides an opportunity for a distinct and limited change to our own law—one which would have a significant impact for those affected by half a century of injustice. This is surely a unique case. Frankly, we are not setting a precedent, which is what the Government seem to have been arguing to date.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I hope that, at the end of my response, they will feel that I have at least given a partly positive response. I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, did not refer to this at Second Reading, but I am very grateful for the discussion we had—I think only yesterday—about this and other matters. I found it very helpful.
I, too, understand the strength of feeling being expressed. I both sympathise and empathise with the residents of the Chagos Islands about how they were treated back in the 1960s and 1970s. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that return and citizenship are two different matters in relation to the Chagossians.
We recognise that some former residents of what is now the British Indian Ocean Territory missed out on rights to British nationality when legislation was last passed in 2002 to address the nationality of the Chagossians. Section 6 of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 granted British Overseas Territories citizenship and British citizenship status by descent to any child born on or after 26 April 1969 and before 1 January 1983, where the mother was a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies by virtue of her birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory. This measure reflected the removal of the Chagossians from the British Indian Ocean Territory and the fact that the mother of a British Overseas Territories citizen could not pass on her citizenship to a child born outside of the UK or a UK territory. The Chagossian community, however, has criticised this provision because it did not provide for circumstances where women left the BIOT before 26 April 1969 in anticipation of being required to leave, nor did the provision allow children to inherit citizenship from an unmarried BOTC father.
Here is the partly positive response to these concerns. I am pleased to say that the Nationality and Borders Bill currently makes provision to extend BOTC and British citizenship rights to any second-generation Chagossians who were not able to acquire citizenship through their mothers or unmarried fathers, due to discrimination in nationality law.
The issues are complex. As one noble Lord pointed out, some family members in the same generation hold British nationality while others do not. I agree with my honourable friend the Minister for Safe and Legal Migration, who stated in the other place that the Government are keen to consider what more we can do to support families seeking to settle here under the current system. Minister Foster has said that he is open to considering how we might use the FCDO £40 million fund package to support the Chagossians settled in the UK.
I must point out the position that successive Governments have expressed on this point. Amendment 11 would undermine the principle in our nationality law that applies to all other descendants of British nationals. Second and subsequent generations, born and settled outside the UK and its territories, do not have a right or entitlement to register as British nationals. I know that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, seeks, as she said, to limit the right to register as a British national to current generations who must apply within a limited timeframe. This does not alleviate the Government’s concern that offering this right is contrary to long-standing government policy. It goes further than the rights available to many other descendants of British nationals settled elsewhere around the world.
The noble Baroness requested that I meet her and others interested in this matter. I always follow up on requests from noble Lords and I am very happy to meet her. We will consider the point raised by my noble friend Lord Horam about what more we can do to address concerns about the Immigration Rules. My noble friend Lady Altmann raised a point about citizenship. Of course, those without citizenship become overstayers. These are complex issues. As I said in reply to my noble friend Lord Horam, we are happy to consider what more we can do through the immigration system.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
In the light of the eloquent and compelling speeches made in this debate, does the Minister concede a distinction between people who leave a territory to settle elsewhere and people who are forcibly evicted from that territory?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I do not think that anybody in this Committee would say that what happened to the Chagossians was, by any means, acceptable to them personally. I do not think I was trying to make that case.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. It is fair to say that there is unequivocal support across the Committee—perhaps not for the exact wording of the amendment, but for what it is trying to achieve. Noble Lords spoke very strongly. It is unusual for nothing to be said in opposition to what is trying to be achieved.
The Minister expressed her sympathy and empathy. I am afraid that butters no parsnips when it comes to what the Chagossians rightly want. As other noble Lords have said, this is a question of justice and human rights. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked a pertinent question about the distinction between those who choose to leave a British territory and those who are forced out. The Minister has accepted that a wrong was done. Whichever Government were in power—I know it was my party—we share the shame. Here is an opportunity, not to put it right but at least to do something tangible that will go some way towards putting one aspect of it right.
I am desperately disappointed that the Government are still using the argument that, because the Chagossians are in the wrong place, they are subject to a long-standing principle of British law. What other group of people has been forcibly evicted in this way? As I said, we are not setting a precedent because I assume we are not planning to evict anybody else.
I thank the Minister for the offer of a meeting. Perhaps we could take a cross-party delegation to reflect the strength of feeling across the House. I hope she will think again. If not, I shall want to bring this back on Report.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker has been supporting the Chagossians for many years; I am relatively new to this issue and the legal position is extremely complicated. I may not have it completely right but there is a principle of justice and human rights, which has been recognised across the Committee. We must use this legislation to put it right. As a number of noble Lords have said, there is no better place than this part of this Bill, which is about putting right historical discrimination in nationality and citizenship law. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for now.
Baroness Hamwee
“(1A) In section 1 (acquisition by birth or adoption), in subsection (5)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “minor” substitute “person”, and(b) after paragraph (b), for “that minor shall” substitute “that person or minor (as the case may be) shall”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to bring British nationality law in line with adoption law in England and Wales. In those nations, an adoption order made by a court may be made where a child has reached the age of 18 but is not yet 19. Yet such an adoption order currently only confers British citizenship automatically where the person adopted is under 18 on the day the order is made.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 14, in my name and that of the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and will speak to Amendments 15, 16, 19, 20, 23 and 24 in this group. The noble Lord apologises to the Committee—he is unwell and had really wished to be here—but I hope that the discussion this afternoon will not be an end of the matter. He and I are keen to rectify an anomaly of which he became aware through his association with Coram, and it is also a concern of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. There are not a large number of people affected by the point we raise but, as the noble Lord says, that is no reason to ignore a matter of principle. He suggested that we flag this up and that we might discuss it with the Minister before Report. We are lucky enough to have a Minister whose diary secretary must go mad when she hears the commitments being made during Committee days.
The issue is another anomaly. British nationality law in England, Wales and Scotland—Northern Ireland is in a different situation—is not in alignment with adoption law. In England and Wales, an adoption order may be made where a child has made an application before reaching the age of 18, as long as they are not yet 19. In Scotland, an adoption order may be made in respect of someone over the age of 18, as long as the application was made when the person was under 18. An adoption order confers British citizenship automatically only when the person adopted is under 18 on the day it was made. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said very forcefully earlier, citizenship is significant: it is about belonging as well as being a technical matter.
Coram gave the example of a young woman who completed her degree at Oxford after her mother had died of cancer, and her maternal aunt, a British citizen resident here, applied to adopt the young woman before she turned 18. The High Court ordered the adoption when she was 18 but not yet 19. I understand—and this must be quite unusual—that the Secretary of State for the Home Department was represented and did not oppose the adoption order, but the relevant section of the British Nationality Act did not operate to confer British citizenship on her, so she was left with student status due to end shortly after her degree was obtained, no basis on which she could continue to enjoy family life in the UK with her adoptive mother, and Immigration Rules making no provision for someone in her position because she did not have 10 years continuous lawful residence in the UK. I have been given other examples but I am sure noble Lords get the point—and I can see from the Minister’s face that she does.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I would like in particular to add our support for Amendment 14 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We hope that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, is feeling a lot better very soon.
Labour’s shadow Minister raised this issue in the Commons and received disappointing answers. As we have heard, the amendment would put right a discrepancy in our nationality law and adoption law. Currently, an adoption order can be made where a child has reached the age of 18 but is not yet 19, but the same adoption order can confer British citizenship only where the child is under 18. In the same order, our law provides that a person is a full member of their adopted family but also that they are not, because they cannot share citizenship with them.
The answers given by the Minister in the Commons were that 18 year-olds are
“capable of making their own life choices”,
that they can
“purchase alcohol, accrue debt, join the Army, or vote in an election”,
and so they are
“fully fledged and can theoretically live independently of other family members”.—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 19/10/21; col. 190.]
On that basis, is the Government’s argument that at 18 someone is young enough to be adopted and provided for in our adoption law, but at the same time too old to really be an adopted child and be recognised in our nationality law?
The Minister in the Commons also argued that this change would be “out of step” with existing nationality law. One can only comment that this amendment is not seeking to make a general change to our law. By its nature, it is a completely limited, clearly defined provision for a small number of children who are going through our adoption system. It is difficult to see why this would be controversial rather than a common-sense change.
I also welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and her questions to the Government. We await the response with interest. We welcome Clause 7 and recognise that its aim is to provide a means to correct further injustices, but our concerns are, first, to make sure that the clause is used and is not just a token power which the Secretary of State “may” choose to action. That is probed by Amendments 16 and 20. Will the Minister clarify whether it is the Government’s intention that the Secretary of State may choose not to allow for a person to be registered as a citizen in a case where they have been subject to a historical injustice?
Secondly, we wish to be sure that this clause is rightly a reactive and fleet-of-foot mechanism to respond to newly identified problems but that it is not an excuse to avoid making further changes in the law where these are necessary. Where a further injustice or any flaw in our nationality law is identified, the Government must amend the law to rectify that. No doubt, the Government could say in their response whether that is their intention.
On the question of the inclusion of British overseas citizens in the provisions of Clause 7, addressed by Amendment 24, the ministerial response in the Commons was unclear. At the same time, the Minister seemed to claim that the clause needed to be as flexible and unfettered as possible but also that it was right to put limits on it; to not include cases which may arise on British overseas citizenship. That would appear somewhat contradictory.
We support the amendments and await answers to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I hope the Minister will also respond to my questions on this group of amendments.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments to Clause 7, which will allow the Home Secretary to grant British citizenship to those who would have been, or been able to become, a British citizen, but for historical legislative unfairness, either an act or omission of a public authority or their exceptional circumstances. It also creates a similar route for governors in overseas territories to grant British Overseas Territories citizenship on the same basis.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that Clause 7 is positive and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that it must not be just a token. I am obviously disappointed with a good deal of what the Minister had to say. With regard to guidance, which I am glad to hear is proposed, the reference to consultation in our amendment was not accidental. It is important, particularly when we are told that the point of this is to allow flexibility for the Secretary of State, to have the input of stakeholders.
On the point of capacity, if the current discretion is sufficient, I should have said that working on the basis of experience one should put something discretionary into statute, so that everyone is quite clear where they are. As to the transitional nature of British overseas citizenship, there are still people who are affected. The fact that there are very few does not change the position.
With regard to adoption and the need to go through a registration process and for it not just to be automatic, the Minister said that this would be considered on its merits. Just repeating those words indicates how different this is from automatic citizenship, which is part and parcel of whole adoption arrangement. She mentioned the need to be consistent with other nationality provisions. I should say that this amendment would be consistent with the arrangements for adoption that we have in the different parts of the UK. I am particularly disappointed about that, but I hear what she says and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment deletes the proposed new sections 40(5A)(a) and (b) in the British Nationality Act 1981.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 26 in this group and I look forward very much to hearing other noble Lords speak to their amendments in this group, which are very much on the same theme.
My amendment is perhaps a little more radical than some in this group, so, for the purposes of clarity, I am seeking to delete from the amendment to Clause 9 that was carried in Committee in the other place the proposed subsection (5A), which states that the notice to be given to a person to be deprived of citizenship, thereby notifying that their citizenship is to be withdrawn,
“does not apply if ... the Secretary of State does not have the information needed to be able to give notice under that subsection”
or if it is not
“in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country”.
I will set out my reasons for doing this.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 27 in my name. I declare at the outset that I was born both a British citizen and a citizen of the Irish Republic.
I am sympathetic to the remarks made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She described them as radical but in my view they could be more radical, because they address what is essentially a symptom rather than the underlying disease. To understand that disease, it perhaps helps to go back a little in history. As the First World War went on, there were fantasies in this country about German spies who were everywhere. The belief grew up that the Kaiser had for many years been planting German agents here who had a remarkable ability to look like us, talk like us and infiltrate the highest levels of society. The late Lord Tweedsmuir’s novel The Thirty-Nine Steps may read to us today as a Boy’s Own story but it tapped into and encouraged a widespread national anxiety.
In 1917 the MP Noel Pemberton Billing claimed to be in possession of the Kaiser’s “black book” containing the names of 47,000 prominent figures in government and society at large who were German agents or had been blackmailed into becoming so. It was the subject of a sensational libel trial and made headlines throughout the land. This was the background to the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1918, which introduced for the first time the power to deprive naturalised British citizens, and only naturalised British citizens, of their nationality.
At Second Reading, noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, stated that the power of deprivation was introduced in 1914, but the 1914 Act merely allowed deprivation in the case of naturalised citizens who had obtained that status by fraud, making statutory a power that was always implicit. It was the 1918 Act that made the radical change. Until that point, the bond of British nationality had been indissoluble. Now it could be removed, from naturalised subjects only, in the event of disloyalty or disaffection to the monarch, for trading with the enemy in time of war, for being subject to a prison sentence of over a year in His Majesty’s dominions, and on some other essentially similar grounds.
The British Nationality Act 1948 maintained substantially the same deprivation provisions but introduced a new right for British citizens whose nationality was not wholly clear to register the British nationality that they were entitled to. I shall come to the relevance of that in a moment. The great consolidating and modernising statute that still governs our nationality law, though much amended subsequently, is the British Nationality Act 1981. It is essentially the original language of that Act that Amendment 27 in my name seeks to reinstate. Noble Lords have already recognised the historical roots of the grounds on which the Act allowed the Government to deprive a British subject of their nationality: fraud, of course, but also disaffection towards Her Majesty, trading with the enemy and serving a one-year prison sentence within five years of naturalisation, though now anywhere in the world, not merely in Her Majesty’s somewhat shrunken dominions.
Regarding deprivation, the Act made one change of capital importance. It extended the Government’s power to deprive from naturalised citizens to those registered as having a right to British citizenship. If the 1918 Act made naturalisation a sort of provisional business, the 1981 Act extended that for the first time to the small number of British citizens by right—not by birth or descent, admittedly, but those who had vindicated their nationality through registration.
We move on rapidly to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in his place. This Act radically altered the position, extending the Government’s power to deprive to all British citizens by birth, descent, registration or naturalisation. The flowery language about disaffection and trading with the enemy was diluted to any conduct
“seriously prejudicial to the … interests”
of the United Kingdom. In a subsequent Act in 2006, it was further diluted to allow deprivation if it were merely
“conducive to the public good.”
These measures were introduced by a Labour Government but no party in your Lordships’ House has wholly clean hands in this regard, because the Immigration Act 2014, introduced by the coalition Government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, went even further, diluting the one constraint that the Government faced in exercising this power, namely that it could not be used if it rendered a person stateless. Under the 2014 Act, being rendered stateless is no protection if the Home Secretary reasonably believes that the person could acquire another nationality.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to oppose the Question that Clause 9 stand part and to my Amendment 28, with my thanks to noble Lords from four different parties who have added their names. Unlike Amendments 27, 29 and 30 to 32, my proposals would not affect the grounds on which citizenship can be withdrawn, though, in partial sympathy with those amendments, and subject to hearing the Minister, I suspect that the current “conducive to the public good” criterion, introduced in 2006, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has just said, is broader than it needs to be.
My stand part amendment gives effect to proposals of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. Grateful as I am to the Minister for her letter on Clause 9—and I really am—it does not allay my profound concerns about a new power to remove a person’s citizenship not just without giving reasons, but without ever having to tell them that you have done so.
I would like first to probe rather further the need for Clause 9, by which I mean the practical need rather than the theoretical points set out in the letter. A Written Question in my name of 5 January asked in how many cases the need to give prior notification had prevented use of the deprivation power. The Minister replied:
“Prior to the recent High Court decision in the case of D4 ... there had been no cases where the notification requirement had prevented deprivation action from taking place.”
That is an interesting admission. For a short period between August 2018 and July 2021, the Government thought they had the power to notify by merely entering a note on the subject’s Home Office file, a route which the High Court and now the Court of Appeal have declared in the D4 case to be outside the statutory requirement that a person be given written notice.
The Minister’s answer shows that not only during this period but before it, when the Government did not claim to be able to notify simply by “putting the document in a drawer”, as Lord Justice Baker put it yesterday in the Court of Appeal, there were no cases in which the requirement to give notice prevented them removing citizenship. That is perhaps not surprising, since it is enough under the existing rules, which are very broad, for notice to be sent by post or email to the person’s last known address, or to a parent, or to the parent’s last known address.
What of the one exception, the case of D4? Her own lawyers told the High Court that her whereabouts in a Syrian camp were known to the Government at the time of deprivation—government agencies had been there to talk to her daughter—and that her family continued to live at her previous address in England. If that is right, the problem was not that the ordinary rules were inadequate but that the Home Office sought to use a procedure that turned out to be unlawful. The case for Clause 9, therefore, even in a case such as that of D4, has yet to be made. I urge the Minister to remedy that defect, if she can.
I question, secondly, the scope of application of Clause 9. Amendments 25 and 26 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would remove some of the alternative grounds on which notice can be withheld. However, with great respect, they do not address the ground that is so broad as to make the others almost redundant: the power to withhold notice whenever it appears to the Secretary of State that this is in the public interest. With or without the noble Baroness’s amendments, Clause 9 permits notice to be withheld even when notification would be perfectly feasible and when no national security concerns are in play. Its effect would be to give the Home Secretary the simple option of telling people or not, as she pleases.
The Home Office has suggested, on social media, that the power would be used only in exceptional circumstances, or only if other means of service are not practicable, or in cases of a threat to national security. If that is the case, it should say so in the Bill. Tweets and videos do not bind current Home Secretaries, let alone future ones—neither, so far as the courts are concerned, do statements from the Dispatch Box. I say to the Minister: please put it in the law.
Thirdly, there is a remarkable absence of safeguards, even by comparison with the two countries I have found whose Parliaments have been prepared to give Ministers a power to withhold notice of citizenship removal: Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, the power to withhold notice applies only to deprivations on national security grounds, and only if the giving of notice would harm security, defence, international relations or law enforcement. There are no such limitations here—and there is accountability: the Minister must regularly table a report to Parliament on his use of the power and brief the Australian Intelligence and Security Committee in writing as soon as practicable after doing so. The Australian equivalent of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, the even more indigestibly titled Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, has a standing own-motion power to review citizenship deprivation laws, something that successive Home Secretaries have refused to permit here. The withholding of notice must be reviewed by the Minister personally every 90 days, and cannot be extended indefinitely, as Clause 9 proposes, keeping the subject in the dark and rendering nugatory his right of appeal. The previous Australian independent monitor, the former military lawyer, James Renwick SC, has proposed that notice should be given as soon as reasonably practicable and always within six months of the deprivation.
New Zealand has in place a stronger safeguard still. If the Minister wishes to dispense with notice, she must apply to the High Court and, if the High Court accepts her application, it will then carry out a full merits review of the decision to deprive. Prior judicial authorisation is hardly alien to our national security culture: we apply it to TPIMs, temporary exclusion orders and a whole range of intrusive surveillance powers. Why should it not apply to this most life-changing of executive measures—the cutting of the bond between citizen and nation?
My Amendment 28 would subject the citizenship removal power on “conducive” grounds to annual review, like the other powers used to combat terrorism. The current triennial review applies only to citizenship removal resulting in statelessness, as provided for by the Immigration Act 2014—removals which, one would hope, are unlikely ever to be more than a tiny proportion of the total.
Why? A recent Written Answer said there had been 14 citizenship deprivations on conducive grounds in 2016, rising to 104 in 2017 and falling back to 21 in 2018. No further breakdown, I was told, could be provided. Why the variation? Why the huge number in 2017, and why has there still been no publication of the figures for 2019, 2020 or 2021? A security cleared independent reviewer—why not the one we already have?—needs to be able to ask those questions, hold feet to the fire and report regularly to Parliament. How else are we to know what is going on in our name?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we are told that the provisions of Part 1 overall seek to remove historical anomalies and to remedy areas of historical legislative unfairness in British nationality law that have prevented citizenship being available to a range of people deemed to have the right to it.
Although we have already discussed some of the problems today, and possible improvements to Part 1, on the whole this part of the Bill is full of positive aspirations, and I welcome it. However, Clause 9 as presently framed stands out as jarring and negative, as it confers on the Secretary of State even more ill-defined and overreaching powers to make citizenship-stripping orders without notice and effectively without appeal, as we have heard. However, it builds on a prior problem of treating citizenship as contingent—a gift of the Home Secretary. We have a chance here to build on the theme of the intent of Part 1, which is to be able to remove historical injustice. That is why I have put my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which strips back powers to the 1981 Act, as he explained.
I will not give as long a rendition of history as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, did—his was ever so interesting —but I want to go a bit further back to look at how we got here. Way back in 1870, William Gladstone proposed a plan to require the ability to revoke the naturalisation of any individual who
“acted in a manner inconsistent with his allegiance as a British subject.”
What is interesting is that this was vigorously opposed by Lord Houghton as a
“transcendental power—more than ought to be entrusted to any man.”
Lord Houghton added that not only was this to place too much power in the hands of the Executive but that the law would also be discriminatory in dealing
“differently with naturalized than with British-born subjects.”—[Official Report, 10/3/1870; cols. 1616-18.]
Parliament then agreed with Lord Houghton, and I hope that today’s Parliament will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Parliament and Lord Houghton then rejected the proposal by arguing that citizenship is a right that should not be arbitrarily removed by the state—“Hear, hear” to that. Now, sadly, this Government and previous Governments enjoy far greater transcendental power than Mr Gladstone ever dreamed of. They are treating citizenship as a privilege, not a right, and they carry on apace.
Following some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on 1918, I find it extraordinary that, in 2017, more Britons have had their citizenship revoked than in both world wars combined. Since 2010, more than 150 people have been stripped of their citizenship; although, as the previous speaker already described, it is entirely unclear why and when, and what explains different figures at any time. But of course this is not just about numbers.
This amendment is drafted to undo an increasingly used power, and it would prohibit the Secretary of State making anyone stateless, other than those who have obtained citizenship through fraud or misrepresentation. I note that anyone who has obtained citizenship through fraud or misrepresentation is not a citizen at all. In other words, this is about protecting people who are citizens.
Clause 9 and the present powers are justified by the Government and in popular discussion on this issue as reserved for those who pose a threat to the United Kingdom or whose conduct involves very high harm. They are associated especially with jihadists—key dates form around 9/11, 7/7 and the rise of ISIS—and violent criminals. That explanation seems dangerous, as it allows the state to use the withdrawal of citizenship as a tool of punishment.
I make the point that citizenship is a legal status for individuals in perpetuity, with no ifs and buts. It enshrines a set of rights and responsibilities. As always when we have this discussion about the control of national borders, there is a spotlight on those trying to cross them and get in, as it were, but we do not give enough attention to the virtues of national borders for those within them. They allow the creation of citizenry with rights and the foundations of social bonds and solidarity.
Any nation state is not just an arbitrary grouping of individuals or made up of members of an abstract entity of humanity; national laws are made on behalf of citizens within a given territory and they do not apply to citizens of other nations. Democracy makes sense only within a specific place. Politicians in the UK are accountable to British citizens, not French or Australian citizens or what have you. UK citizens are then treated equally to each other within the boundaries of that nation state. They are treated equally at the ballot box or before the law. Whether bishop or builder, corporate CEO or cleaner, whoever or whatever your parents are, before the law and as voters, you are equal. That equality between citizens of any nation state means that they have different rights and duties from non-citizens.
For these special citizenship rights to mean anything, that equal treatment is crucial. Even when some of our fellow citizens renege on their duties and break the law—sometimes committing the most heinous transgressions of national law—we still do not renege on their citizenship.
We should not be squeamish about punishing British citizens who, for example, join a barbaric army such as ISIS, any more than when punishing British citizens who are child murderers or rapists. What we do not and should not do is wash our hands of our citizens because we deplore the vile crimes they have committed. Does it not exhibit moral cowardice if the state pretends it has no responsibility for dealing with the reprehensible actions committed by some of our own citizens? That is true for Stephen Lawrence’s racist murderers, Sarah Everard’s murderer or Shamima Begum’s active involvement in a death cult committed to destroying western free societies. What they all have in common, whether we like it or not, is that they are British citizens.
If ISIS and Islamist terrorism are considered special cases, as some argue, the Government should bring special legislative solutions to Parliament. Instead, the Home Secretary is given a general power to outsource British criminals to third parties, such as countries they have never set foot in, while allowing a practice that undermines and damages the very precious citizenship that British jihadis so grossly betray.
The truth is that this power given to Home Secretaries does not keep citizens safe in the UK. Instead, it creates a citizenship framework in which some are second-class citizens, their rights contingent and provisional. To those who say, “Don’t worry. Trust the Home Office not to abuse these powers. They’ll be used in only a very narrow way, directed at very particular people”, I reply: Windrush.
How counterproductive all this is. It is inevitably racially divisive and has caused huge worries and anxieties, as we have heard, among millions of British citizens, or would-be British citizens, especially those from ethnic minorities. As we noted at Second Reading, Part 9 sends a message that certain citizens, despite being born and brought up in the UK and having no other home, remain migrants in this country. While so many of our own fellow citizens feel their citizenship, and therefore all their rights, to be precarious, it makes an absolute mockery of demanding of them the duties of citizenship, such as loyalty, law-keeping, obligation to the life of the national community, and taking responsibility for the democratic future of one’s own society.
To conclude, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, cited British Future’s excellent report, Barriers to Britishness, which notes that, at a time when society can feel fragmented and atomised, when there are new challenges to a unified citizenship in the form of, for example, divisive identity politics, or in the context of many institutions that once bonded us all as citizens together having a less powerful hold and, to be honest, a trust deficit, then surely the common bonds of secure citizenship are more important than ever. In preference to this, this clause’s message—that citizenship is a privilege and that many possess it only under sufferance, depending on what a particular Home Secretary of the day, of whatever party, considers acceptable or unacceptable behaviour—is very damaging.
Let us take the opportunity of this Bill to reset the narrative. I will support a later amendment proactively promoting a positive citizenship agenda, but this amendment is a good start to this endeavour. I am also sympathetic to Amendment 32 and anything radical that secures the rights of British citizens, whoever they are, whoever their parents are and wherever they are from, and not the power to the Home Secretary.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have already spoken. It is heartening to hear voices from across the Committee raising concerns about the proposed powers in Clause 9. My contribution will be very short.
I can well imagine variants on our current conversation happening time and again, ever since the British Nationality Act 1981, which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, brought in deprivation of citizenship. Indeed, a look through Hansard would confirm that.
Since 1981, these deprivation powers have been amended and extended, including in 2003, 2006, 2014 and 2018. Each time, the rationale provided by the Government is the same: that these are relatively minor tweaks made for pragmatic reasons, with the security of the nation in mind, and that these powers will be used only in extreme circumstances, with great caution and restraint on the part of the Government. Yet it seems that these powers are never quite enough. The argument that they would be used in only the most extreme cases seems somewhat at odds with the 104 cases reported in 2017, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. At some point, it must surely become necessary for us to say that the Secretary of State has more than sufficient powers, given the gravity of what it means to be stripping citizenship away from people. Instead, it seems we are being asked to allow for the goalposts to be moved yet again—for the third time in less than a decade.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have been very pleasantly surprised to see the level of public anger that has been expressed against Clause 9. People are rightly absolutely furious to learn that there is a two-tier system of citizenship in this country, where if you have a second nationality you are at risk of the Government withdrawing your British citizenship. That is pretty grim. However, it is concerning that some people are suggesting this is something new. It is not new; it is already the law that dual citizens can have their British citizenship revoked with the very wishy-washy legal test of it being conducive to the public good.
That is why my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle has tabled Amendments 32 and 33. These will revoke the power of the Government to remove people’s British citizenship unless their citizenship was obtained by fraud or deception. Clause 9 extends the power, but simply defeating Clause 9 will not remove the power. I hope that we can work with noble Lords to remove the power on Report to eliminate this two-tier system of citizenship.
While we are discussing numbers, since 2006 the legal website Free Movement has found that at least 464 people have been stripped of their British citizenship. For comparison, in the 30 years before 2003 no one had been stripped of citizenship. So much for transparency —this could be discovered only through research, as the Government do not provide any sort of regular reporting on the figures. I ask the Minister if the Government will start doing that, so we can keep track and be fully aware of what they are doing.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, reference has understandably been made to one of the Acts which came to fruition when I was Home Secretary, and I do not resile from that. I speak this afternoon because this is a critically important debate, and the contributions so far have been both informative and enlightening.
Amendment 28 from the noble Lord, Anderson, has a great deal of merit. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for whom I have the most enormous respect and good will from working together on a whole range of other issues, that simply going back to day zero is not necessarily the best answer for the solution we are seeking. If we could find a way forward on Report that takes away the genuine fear from millions of people who believe—erroneously, but they believe it—that Clause 9 as drafted and the implementation of further measures will put them and their families at risk, then we will have done a good job in clarifying the situation.
To put things in perspective, the reason that there was a change from the early 20th century onwards has a great deal to do with the nature of dual citizenship, the way in which global movements have changed quite dramatically and the consequences of global franchise terrorism, which did not exist before. Our main threat, as we all know, up to the beginning of this century, was seen to be from the conflict in Ireland.
To be fair to the Minister, an effort to try to bring the present situation up to date is understandable, but the way it is being done is not. I do not think that the 2002 legislation, implemented in 2003, actually went too far. It was done on the back of the attack on the World Trade Center and beyond, and it was necessary to take into account the dangers that were foreseen and the people who were known to be a danger to our country. I thought that the measures taken at the time seemed to be proportionate. We can debate whether they were or were not, but it is absolutely clear that simply going further and further without justification is not appropriate in our democracy. A step back and a reflection on what it is we are trying to achieve, and why, would be beneficial.
By the way, I do not consider that the measures I was involved in were about punishing anybody. They were about protecting people from those embedded in the community who were no longer committed to our democratic society; in other words, those who had forfeited this part of their dual citizenship—citizenship of our country—because of the actions they took or were prepared to take. These were the actions of individuals, not actions imposed by government.
Let us try, if we can, to get this right on Report. If we can do that, we will take away that fear, which I think is the main reason why we should remove Clause 9.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, first, I apologise for being unable to speak at Second Reading. I have put my name to Amendment 27 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, who laid it out so well.
Clause 9 has shone a spotlight on legislation concerning the deprivation of citizenship—legislation that has essentially been in existence since 1918, as has been pointed out. However, the degree of power that this legislation wields has evolved over decades, most notably in 2002, 2006 and 2015. The current attempt to deprive a British person of their citizenship without even informing them in advance takes these powers to a wholly unacceptable and sinister level; powers that we would not expect in a modern democracy and, as has been said, more akin to archaic banishment laws.
As my noble friend Lord Moylan stated, this amendment would allow us to row back from the damaging legislation of recent years to the British Nationality Act 1981. It is by no means perfect, as it has certain aspects that one could question, but it is perhaps the most pragmatic and acceptable legislation that we have currently. At the very least, this amendment would go a long way to providing some degree of security to the many people who feel that they are vulnerable under the current legislation, and certainly the proposed legislation. Such legislation has crept in, often as a knee-jerk response to a single event or individual.
The Minister may argue that what I say is an over- reaction and that these powers would be used only in exceptional circumstances. But if Clause 9 is enacted into law, there is a very real danger of its misuse. The open- ended term
“conducive to the public good”
flashes red. If citizenship is revoked without notice—perhaps while someone is abroad, with the Home Secretary considering them unreachable—it is highly unlikely that that person would have any recourse to appeal by the time they found out their predicament. On a more basic level, you cannot appeal a decision of which you are unaware.
As a person cannot be made stateless according to international conventions, by default this clause has a disproportionate impact on people from ethnic- minority backgrounds who have a connection to the Commonwealth or a country where they are entitled to dual nationality. It also has an impact on people from Europe, and it impacts Jewish communities who are entitled to citizenship in Israel.
There are already examples of wrongful revocation of someone’s citizenship, in effect destroying years of their life, as in the case of the British man known as E3. He was stripped of his citizenship while in Bangladesh and stranded there for five years. He only recently had his citizenship reinstated, with no explanation by the Home Office as to its actions, no shred of evidence against him and eventually no charge. There needs to be greater transparency as to how this power is used, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out. Surely we cannot have a society made up of degrees of citizenship, where some are full citizens while others are half-citizens and some are perhaps a bit more than half-citizens.
Being British should not mean that people are expected to deny their ethnicity or renounce their religion, their culture, the country of their birth or that which gives them their identity. We should all be able to celebrate every aspect of who we are and still be a citizen of the state able to vote, work, contribute, raise our families and live in freedom and free from prejudice. I understand that this is not what is being disputed, but there are many people in our country right now—good, law-abiding, loyal citizens—who feel threatened, let down and even scared because they feel that they are the target of this legislation due to their ethnic heritage. There is real disquiet among minority-ethnic communities about the impact of this proposed legislation. Certainly, it does not give confidence or engender loyalty and a sense of belonging, which is what I hope the Home Office would wish to see from all those who live here.
Today, expulsion is for extreme crimes. Tomorrow, it may be for wrongfully accused postmasters or for those exercising the right to peaceful protest on some issue. After all, expulsion may be deemed to be
“conducive to the public good”.
On a personal level, I feel utterly disappointed. If your Lordships will permit me to digress, I do so by way of illustrating how others like me feel. I came to this country as a child of six in the 1960s and was subsequently naturalised—yes, I am associated with that dubious term. My late father served in what was then the British Indian Army during the Second World War. He came from Pakistan. His loyalty to the UK throughout his life was without question and his contribution notable, both in wealth creation and in public service. He was a first-generation immigrant familiar with the language and culture of his country of birth.
We now have a significant population of second, third and even fourth-generation people from the Commonwealth who know no other country than the UK. They have local accents, and they are relaxed with local cultural norms. They feel themselves to be 100% British. They are, nevertheless, in a category of those who have links to another country: that of their parents’ or grandparents’ birth. Therefore, they are potentially vulnerable to having their citizenship revoked and—if Clause 9 is enacted into law—perhaps without even the courtesy of being informed beforehand.
I believe that there is a wider debate to be had over whether citizenship deprivation as a whole is in the interests of our country. I support Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in this regard.
I understand that the broad objective of this legislation is aimed at only a handful of extremists and criminals, but legislation has to be more wind-tight and watertight. What is essentially at stake here is the principle of the rights of all citizens. Are we really going to let a handful of criminals dictate our very values of fairness, justice and equality? I hope that we would trust in our justice system, one that is the envy of the world, and not perhaps a whim and a flick of an administrator’s pen.
As a six year-old newcomer, unfamiliar with the language or customs of this country, I was acutely conscious of any prejudice or discrimination, however subtle. Human beings are good at detecting such subtleties. Unlike my carefree school friends, I grew up very mindful of immigration legislation whenever it was being debated. I was also conscious of the attempts by our various Governments to address inequalities and to establish good race relations. Having recently served in the European Parliament, I can say that I am proud that the UK has done more in the area of equality, inclusion and diversity than any other country in Europe.
We have so much to be proud of as a nation, so let us not bring into law such a blatantly illiberal and divisive piece of legislation. It is not in accordance with our values and will not serve us well. I agree with the conclusion of the Constitution Committee that Clause 9 must be removed from the Bill.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan and the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, to oppose Clause 9; I have added my name to both. I also lend my support to all other amendments in this group. We should support anything that allows us to think again, row back and reset in an area that has developed in ways that we could not have envisaged, and take any opportunity to put it right.
The consequences of Clause 9 are, once again, incremental changes but with far-reaching consequences. I do not intend to rehearse the arguments I made at Second Reading on the history of the state’s power to strip UK citizens of their citizenship. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for comprehensively and clearly stating the history of this issue, the background, the policy, the changes and its impact.
Each change has been sold by successive Governments as small, incremental, narrow and necessary. But each change has widened further the net of who, how and why the state can strip our fellow countrymen and women of their right. Clause 9 removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to notify someone when they are being deprived of their citizenship in a broad range of loosely defined circumstances, including when it does not appear to be “reasonably practicable”. I am grateful to my noble friend for her recent correspondence, but I am afraid it provides little justification for this change, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said.
Today I want to make three points. The Government have stripped hundreds of citizens of their citizenship over the last decade. Indeed, as recently as 2017, we heard that over 100 people were stripped of it in one year alone. The requirement for notice was, of course, fulfilled in all those cases. The lack of a Clause 9 power did not prevent the Government acting in hundreds of cases. The case of D4, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords, was what led to this clause at the 11th hour, with little debate in the Commons. To help the Committee understand the rationale behind this clause, can my noble friend start by publishing in a single document the numbers of people deprived, the reasons for the deprivation and the ethnicities of those deprived from, say, 1981 to 2010 and 2010 to date?
Secondly, I want to talk about stripping someone of their citizenship. It strips them of their right to live in their country and of their home, their job and their right to family. It often deprives them of the only place they know and forces them to find another place in the world that may or may not accept them—often a place with which they have little if any connection and where their life may be at risk.
Clause 9 seeks to do this without even notifying the person of such a radically life-altering decision. This in reality removes the person’s right to challenge the decision, the basis of it, the accuracy of the facts on which it was based or, indeed, even whether the person stripped is the right person. My noble friend’s explanation in her letter, I am afraid, goes no further in giving any reassurance that appeal rights will be preserved with Clause 9. As the Constitution Committee said in its report on the Bill:
“The House may conclude that this clause is unacceptable and should be removed from the Bill.”
Thirdly, I want to move to a fundamental principle that we are equal before the law, entitled to equal protection and equal treatment. I think the whole Committee can agree on that. In this country, we legislate for what is a crime and publish the law, including sentencing guidelines. If we break the law, we know the consequences that will follow—and follow equally for all citizens. Yet it seems that these fundamental principles are now being eroded.
So perhaps I may ask my noble friend: if an act, a crime, carries the penalty and sentence of citizenship being stripped, should it apply to anyone convicted of that crime? Do my noble friends on the Front Bench agree that sentencing should be linked to crime, not where your grandparents or great-grandparents were born, and that a sentence should not change based on heritage or race? If my noble friends agree with that principle, they will think again and, I hope, before Report they will strike Clause 9 from the Bill, because to do anything else would mean that we further the appalling situation in which we find ourselves now in Britain that seeks to sentence predominately a minority black and brown community differently from the majority white community. Yes, that is hard to listen to, but it should disgust and disturb us in this House.
Being a citizen of this country means that, when you commit a crime, you are arrested, tried and convicted by our laws and our courts. I therefore disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I accept that it is hard for him to revisit his time, but it is punishment and cannot be protection, as he says it is. If the laws, as he says, were brought in as a response to the challenge of terrorism and an international terrorist franchise, surely that required an international response. So how will dumping our citizens who have shown support for that international franchise in another country—likely with less resources—protect us? I would argue that it makes us all less safe.
Finally, this clause has had a chilling effect in our country. It has provoked debates in homes in settled, established communities such as mine and those of other noble Lords. I want to mention a very personal story. When I was growing up, there were two things I remember acutely. The first was a Hitachi case containing everyone’s papers, passports and naturalisation certificates. When anything happened in our home, for example if we moved, that Hitachi case was rescued first, because the fear was real that, without that case, we might be asked to leave.
The story that I heard from my parents was this. My dad is an optimistic guy who always thought that he would build a house in the north of Pakistan in the way that many of us dream of having a villa in the south of Spain. But my mum, like many women, was more realistic and cynical. She worried that one day we would be asked to leave and go back home. I did not envisage that here I would be at 50, not quite dreaming my dad’s dream but definitely worrying my mum’s worry.
So I say to my noble friend that opposition to this clause is widespread. Most of our inboxes are full of briefings and correspondence. The clause is broadly opposed in this Committee. Today we have seen the House at its best; across it and across political divides we have had noble Lords raising their concerns. So I hope that my noble friend will think again before Report.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I want to say just a few words because I have listened very carefully, looked at all these amendments and heard some extremely good speeches from colleagues on all sides of the House. However, I am a former Immigration Minister and, looking back at legislation that I was involved in in the 1990s, there were certain Bills in which clauses came forward, we looked at amendments and, frankly, we concluded that, however good the amendments were, the clauses were unamendable and should be removed when they were not effective and where it had been clearly shown that they would have had bad effects.
I am grateful to those who have moved or spoken to their amendments, but I can think of few proposals that can offend as widely and as profoundly as the removal of people’s citizenship. Clause 9, sadly—to me, anyway, as a lawyer—is an affront to our common law, to international legal standards and understandings, and to our various human rights commitments. Critically, it could have appalling consequences for those affected.
As I stated at Second Reading, stripping people of their citizenship—secretly and unilaterally, on vaguely defined grounds such as “in the public interest”—exposes us to actions that fall short of our normal democratic standards, both at home and abroad. It also predicates many legal proceedings.
We all know that the first rule of government is to protect our citizens. I took that very seriously then, as I do know. Clause 9 would place already vulnerable people at greater risk. There are plenty of examples of this. A person may be deported to a country where capital punishment is practised, or where other inhumanities might present themselves. This proposal could hardly be described as protective, as it would open us up to accusations of double standards, which would undermine our efforts to speak out against issues such as the death penalty or cruel and inhumane practices elsewhere.
The UK has a very good and proud record of calling out injustice when it applies to other countries that show a lack of respect for human rights and international standards. At times—not often, but occasionally—we are also good at sporting spurious justifications to mask unsavoury policies. I fear that this clause would grant the UK the same sort of cover and ability to employ the same sorts of excuses to enforce policies that are otherwise indefensible and might be misused.
Citizenship is a valuable status and a clear constitutional right. The issue of revocation is, therefore, to be taken seriously. Any attempt by the state to withdraw an individual’s citizenship must have a clear and robust basis in law. It must assert the primacy of due process, including the right of appeal. Above all, it must be transparent, where the basic rights of notification of action to a subject are followed.
I fear that Clause 9 will create a process that is arbitrary and fundamentally unjust. That is why it should not be supported. I hope that my noble friend can rectify the situation before Report. I listened particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. He was quite correct; it is very difficult to see that any form of amendment could put this clause right.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, it is important to situate Clause 9 within the breadth of our immigration law as it stands. For obvious reasons, deprivation powers available to a Secretary of State to strip a person of their British citizenship were historically very tightly drawn indeed. In 2003, 2006, 2014 and 2018, these powers were significantly expanded. They may now be exercised in relation to any British citizen who is a dual national—including British citizens from birth—where the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.
If we want to grasp how broad a power that is and how broad are its implications, we need only recall what the Supreme Court said in the Begum case last year—that this includes a situation where the person does not even know that they are a dual national and where they have little or no connection with the country of their second nationality.
The power can also be exercised in relation to naturalised British citizens even where they are not dual nationals if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the conducive to the public good test is passed because the person has acted in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK. If the Secretary of State has a reasonable belief that the person is able to become a national of another country and that belief turns out to be unfounded, the individual will become stateless.
The leading immigration law silk, Raza Husain, has said:
“This progressive extension over the last two decades has meant that it is no longer necessary to demonstrate that someone is a terrorist or a traitor before stripping them of British citizenship. Individuals may be deprived of citizenship on general public interest grounds of the sort usually invoked to justify deportation, rather than on the basis of their severing the bonds of allegiance that are the hallmark of nationality.”
It is no doubt because of the lowering of these procedural safeguards that the exercise of deprivation of citizenship is now relatively common. In the period from 1973 to 2002, there were no deprivation orders at all. I am told that, since 2011, the power has been used in at least 441 cases, with 104 in 2017 alone. Of course, Clause 9 has the potential very significantly to increase the use of this power. The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, has spoken very compellingly about the disproportionate impact that this will inevitably have on non-white British citizens.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we have benefited from the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, because he has reminded us that, although we have heard some very moving speeches going a little wide of the mark, Clause 9 is all about how you notify the unnotifiable.
I will go back to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and declare the interests that I have in the register. We as a House have to decide what we do about the criminals who wish to do us serious and long-lasting harm in the context of this. Perhaps it is too wide-ranging, but it is a necessary bid to try to ensure that, where we have people who wish to do us harm, they are somehow prevented from our giving them, under existing legislation, the ability to do so.
I have very carefully read the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and the key question that we now have to turn our minds to is whether we wish to empower the Secretary of State to deprive a person of citizenship without giving notice. In many ways, this debate should be all about that because, speaking I suppose as a practising solicitor, I cannot find Clause 9 as a change in the policy of deprivation of citizenship—the change proposed is all about notification. So Clause 9 does not allow the Home Secretary to remove citizenship on a whim, it is not targeted at particular ethnic minorities and it does not change the reasons why a person might be deprived of their British citizenship. Clause 9 does not remove the right to appeal a decision to deprive. I cannot see that law-abiding British citizens have anything to fear from Clause 9.
We are charged by the court in the following terms. Lady Justice Whipple said this in the ruling delivered yesterday:
“There may be good policy reasons for empowering the”
Home Secretary
“to deprive a person of citizenship without giving notice, but such a step is not lawful under this legislation. If the government wishes to empower the Secretary of State in that way, it must persuade Parliament to amend the primary legislation. That is what it is currently seeking to do under the Nationality and Borders Bill”.
She concluded, which brings us back to where we are now, that
“it is for Parliament to decide,”
This has been a valuable debate, but I think we have strayed too far from the key question: how do you notify the unnotifiable?
There are evil people. I am probably one of many Members of this House who has received letter bombs and death threats. When I was in the Cabinet, I had death threats from three separate organisations. Fortunately, the Post Office intercepted the letter bombs. There are people who wish to kill us, to injure us and to destroy the fabric of our society, and we must try to focus on how we are to stop that happening.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I did not speak on Second Reading, but I am delighted to have been here today to have heard the speeches from noble Lords, and what an interesting debate it has been. I have learned a good deal, and I am indebted to the Bingham Centre, whose publications I now read avidly to inform myself about legislation that comes before this House.
I am rather pleased to be following the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because I was persuaded of the problems with Clause 9 by one of the paragraphs in the analysis from the Bingham Centre:
“Clause 9 departs from the requirements of the Rule of Law by allowing a British citizen to be deprived of their citizenship without even being warned about it, or told the grounds for it. There is zero judicial or parliamentary oversight of the dispensation of notice, and the grounds can be as insubstantial as the mere administrative inconvenience that it is not reasonably practicable to give notice.”
If that is what is intended by the legislation before us, there is definitely a chilling effect, as referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, in the suggestion that this is how we should operate. I do not do demur from the argument that there will be difficulties at some point, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but these are very wide powers and they have, as the Bingham Centre says, no judicial or parliamentary oversight at the point at which they would be invoked. Giving these powers to the Home Secretary—any Home Secretary—is unacceptable. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, they would be divisive and would, in my view, not accord with the values of fairness, of justice or of equality before the law.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hunt narrowed the debate to the issues that are in the clause, but the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, has widened it again by discussing broader powers. I do not have my name to any of the amendments, but I have been listening carefully to the speeches; indeed, we have been listening for the last hour and a quarter. Like other Members of your Lordships’ House I have had a volume of briefing, some of it arriving very late—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, earlier in our proceedings. It is quite hard to take it on when it arrives the morning before you are due to participate. Some of that briefing seems to be fairly hyperbolic, and I am not sure it is in terms that help a calm discussion of what has at its core the really serious point that my noble friend made about keeping people safe. Phrases such as “two-tier citizenship” do not help us to establish in a calm way what the underlying effect, impact and purpose of the clause is as presently drafted.
That said, when you pick up the Financial Times of 21 January and see that the president of the Law Society has the lead letter with the headline,
“Legal changes will put UK rights culture in peril”,
while other submissions suggest that the rule of law is being undermined, one has to sit up and take notice. I am not a lawyer, as the House will be aware, but I absolutely, comprehensively and unequivocally support the rule of law as a cornerstone of our society. So, in the couple of minutes that I have, I would like to try to pierce the fog of claim and counterclaim to see if one can reach any sort of firm ground. My respect for the rule of law stems from a lecture that I heard 50 years ago. It is our fate in this House to listen to an awful lot of speeches and an awful lot of lectures, and many of them disappear from one’s mind almost as soon as the speaker sits down, but this lecture from 50 years ago rings as true to me today as it did then. It came about because for a time after I finished university I went to live in the United States and Canada, and nearly stayed there. I went to do an MBA at the Wharton School of finance in Philadelphia. The school used to arrange for outside speakers, eminent people in various fields, to come and talk about their experiences.
One such person was a Cambridge University professor called Peter Bauer, later a member of your Lordships’ House as Lord Bauer, of Market Ward in the City of Cambridge. Peter Bauer was Jewish, born in Budapest in the closing years of the Austro-Hungarian empire, 1914-15, and his great contribution was looking at the role of development economics and how we manage to deal with it. That afternoon, he explained how no country could hope to survive without two things: the rule of law and respect for property rights. He went on to say that the rule of law was not an absolute; it was relative, and it depended on what he called the informed consent of a population—that is, if a large proportion of the population, having heard the arguments, had an informed position and did not agree with it then the rule of law was not assisted but undermined. In his view, to use an oft-quoted phrase, the law is too important to be left to the lawyers. In considering the difficult issues raised by the speeches and by Clause 9, I would like to test them against the Bauer “informed consent” test. In that sense, I have drawn certain conclusions but I am not on the Front Bench, so I hope my noble friend can reassure me that the interpretation I have made of the clause is in fact in accordance with reality.
Let us assume that we are on the lower deck of the Clapham omnibus. The passengers on the Clapham omnibus are our fellow citizens. They are a questioning crowd. They do not think the Government always have a lot to offer, and they think political parties of all persuasions probably have rather less. If we were to begin by explaining to them that our wish was to discuss the issue of the deprivation of citizenship, they would begin by asking, “Are the Government proposing to change the basis on which citizenship can be removed?” As I understand it, the answer is no. “If there is no change to that,” they would say, “then what is the change going to be?” The answer would be that if, after reasonable effort, the person who had done terrible things to our country could not be found, citizenship could be removed without notice being given directly to the person affected.
The people on the bus might then ask us, “If this change were not made, would people be able to hide themselves away to evade justice?” The same question might be asked about people who happened to live or ended up in war zones or areas of conflict. We would have to tell them that that would mean that they could not have their citizenship removed, because we could not reach them. Because they are suspicious of the Government, the travellers on the bus would ask, “Could the new procedures be appealed against, or are they just a fiat, without any appeal?” I understand that they can be appealed against. Because it is a Clapham omnibus, there will be people from all parts of our community, minority as well as majority, and they would want to be reassured that this was not going to be used, as my noble friend Lady Warsi suggested, against one particular part of our community. There is no evidence that I have seen that it is so designed.
Finally, I think they would say, “How big a problem is this?”. In particular, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, “How many people have had their citizenship removed on the grounds that it was not conducive to public good?” That is a big catch-all. I understand that fewer than 20 people on average have had their citizenship removed in recent years. Will my noble friend confirm that? If we had informed consent of what was planned on the Clapham omnibus—if Peter Bauer’s test was used—I think people would understand why this was being done.
We have heard a lot about the important moral case for protecting the position of everybody in our society, including that very small number of people who set out deliberately to do us terrible harm. However, as we struggle to balance the conflictive needs of freedom and security, we must not overlook the moral case for the silent majority—the millions of our fellow citizens who look to the Government to keep them safe and who do not expect offenders to be able to evade the consequences of their actions.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am not a lawyer either, but like my noble friend Lady Blower I have read the Bingham Centre’s report on this. I want to draw your Lordships’ attention to one aspect of it, which I do not think has been mentioned—I apologise if it has. There have been so many good speeches, particularly from the other side of the House, and across the House.
According to the report, the clause includes a retroactive power which would allow what was not lawful at the time to be made lawful now. The report suggests that this is retroactive lawmaking of the worst kind and particularly offends the rule of law. I think we should do away with the clause altogether. I have also read an article by Dominic Grieve, the much-respected former Conservative Attorney-General, on the “ConservativeHome” blog, which I must admit is not normally at the top of my daily reading list. It is an instructive piece. I will not read at length, because time is getting on, but he calls it,
“using legislation as a form of propaganda”
That is from a former Attorney-General and worth taking note.
I also draw attention to the fears that this is creating in the wider public. I have just had an email saying that over 100 organisations have written an open letter to the Prime Minister asking that this clause be removed. I hope that, when we come to Report, the House will remove this clause, which offends the rule of law.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am also not a lawyer, but we have Amendment 29 in this group and we join the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in opposing the Question that Clause 9 stand part of the Bill. I accept that Clause 9 is about giving notice, but the amendments in the group go beyond that. The main concerns that this group addresses are the significant increase in the use of the power to deprive British citizens of their citizenship and the new provision of dispensing with the requirement that the Secretary of State requires notice to be given to a person deprived of citizenship.
There have been many detailed and compelling speeches and I do not intend to repeat them, but I will refer to the powerful and personal speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, about how this provision is affecting some British citizens. This is not going to affect some British citizens, like me, at all, but when you hear her personal recollections of the fear that this clause is generating and about the importance of the family attaché case—reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik—you understand that, although it may not be targeting particular communities within the cohort of British citizens, it is certainly causing distress among certain parts of that cohort.
To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, on what we do with those people who wish to do us harm, I say that we prosecute them in the courts. We do not dump them on other countries.
Depriving someone of their citizenship is a very serious step to take and it is being taken with increasing regularity. To then do away with the requirement even to notify the subject is totally unacceptable. How can anyone take any steps to correct or challenge a decision that they know nothing about? The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about how we notify the unnotifiable. Even in the case that he and other noble Lords referred to, which has been in the courts, the individuals were not uncontactable; they were not unnotifiable within the law. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, explained, notice could have been served on that individual, but the Home Office chose not to. In the figures he gave about how many times that has stopped the Home Office from serving notice on somebody of deprivation of nationality, the answer was zero. Clause 9 is not only unreasonable but, based on the facts, unnecessary as well.
With the increased use by the Secretary of State of the power to deprive a British citizen of their citizenship, we support Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, which says that reviews of the use of the power should be annual and not every three years. We also agree with Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to restrict the circumstances in which someone can be deprived of their British citizenship. My noble friend Lady Hamwee will address our Amendment 29, which removes the power of the Secretary of State to directly deprive a British citizen of their citizenship, requiring an application to be made to a court.
We agree with the principle behind Amendments 32 and 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that the powers the Secretary of State has to deprive British citizens of their citizenship need to be curtailed and the process made more transparent, but we believe that our Amendment 29 achieves those objectives.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I sense very well that the Committee would like to move on, so I will be much quicker than I had intended to be, but my noble friend Lord Paddick has asked me to speak to Amendment 29. Before I do so, I cannot resist rising to the challenge about my party’s involvement in the 2014 legislation. Perhaps after this debate I will explain to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the concessions gained in negotiation at that time in response to the agreement.
Amendment 29 would change the requirement from an assessment of conduciveness, if that is a word, to the public good to necessity in the interests of national security. I thank the Minister for her letter following Second Reading. I could not help thinking that the two examples she gave of where Clause 9 could apply probably were matters of national security. She says so for one example, and the other is where it is assessed to be
“in the interests of the relationship between the UK and another country”.
That must be very close to national security, unless the issue is a very long way away from the other country’s security, which would not be a good basis on which to move forward. The amendment would change the requirement of an order to allow for judicial involvement. These two examples actually show why the matter should go to a judge.
I am editing my speech as I go. Reference has been made to particular communities being especially affected by this provision. I say to the passengers on what, in my neck of the woods, is the 337 bus to Clapham that something does not need to be designed to have a particular effect. If it has that effect, it falls into the area we are concerned about.
Our amendment would also add to the exclusions a person holding British citizenship by birth, and where it would
“affect the best interests of a child in the family”.
That is looking at a fairly wide family. Use of the power would require an annual review, which I think is in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened to this debate with enormous care. I have conflicting feelings about it. I do not know whether I am prouder of the quality, logic and humanity of so many of the speeches, particularly from the Benches opposite, or whether the more compelling emotion I feel is anger that the speeches even had to be made. Unsurprisingly, I will speak against Clause 9 standing part of the Bill and in favour of the various amendments attempting to dilute its pernicious effect—and even more in favour of the proposed new clauses that attempt to go further.
I almost feel as if I and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, have listened to two completely different debates. The absolute tour de force by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and other speeches on these new clauses were not wide of the mark, because they quite rightly acknowledged that Clause 9 deals just with notice. They conceded that point, but talked about the rot that goes further back in terms of two-tier citizenship and the more precarious version of citizenship that some people are coming to experience because of the increasing use of powers of deprivation, and because these will inevitably have to be used more against some groups within the citizenry than others.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her letter to all Peers of 25 January. If I understood correctly what the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, said, I rather gather that it did not make a great impact on her. I am probably in the same category. Nevertheless, I appreciated receiving the letter.
I have added my name in relation to Clause 9 standing part of the Bill, which was spoken to with such clarity and authority by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and will speak to that. No doubt there will be a need for some reflection on all the amendments in this group, as well as the stand part debate, as to what may or may not happen on Report.
Frankly, through Clause 9, the Government—metaphorically speaking, I stress—take no prisoners. They seek to amend the long-standing position, under the British Nationality Act 1981, that an individual must be notified if they are to be deprived of their nationality. That requirement of prior notice is removed by Clause 9
“if it appears to the Secretary of State that … the Secretary of State does not have the information needed to be able to give notice … it would for any other reason not be reasonably practicable to give notice … or … notice … should not be given … in the interests of national security … in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or … otherwise in the public interest.”
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, made particular reference to that last part on the basis that it is so broad and wide-ranging.
Yet, as we know, the present rules already allow for citizenship deprivation letters to be delivered to an individual’s last known address. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out—this was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—the Government said that there have been no cases where the requirement to give notice stopped a deprivation of citizenship order coming into being. Of course, that begs the question: why do we have Clause 9 at all? I do not think that we got an answer to that in the letter from the Minister of 25 January 2022.
The number of people deprived of their citizenship, which the Government can now do on the basis that it would be
“conducive to the public good”,
has risen over the past 12 years. We have heard a variety of figures during this debate as to the extent of that deprivation and the numbers involved. I have a figure, too. It does not tally with some of the figures that have been given but the figure that I have is that, between 2010 and 2018, around 175 people were deprived of their citizenship on the grounds that it was conducive to the public good. A significant number happened in 2017, as has been said; the figures certainly seem to be on an upward trend.
In that context, information on the Court of Appeal decision that has been referred to that upheld a High Court ruling—the D4 case—says that the Home Secretary
“argued that notification had been given to D4, who has been detained in the … camp in Syria since January 2019, by simply placing a note on her Home Office file, relying on regulations introduced without parliamentary approval.”
Under Clause 9, we are faced with even wider powers being given to the Home Secretary. In the light of a note simply being placed on a Home Office file, relying on regulations introduced without parliamentary approval, how are we expected to have any confidence in the provisions of Clause 9 being applied fairly and objectively when this kind of thing is going on and has been brought to our attention? In how many cases has this been done, with a note simply being placed on the Home Office file? It certainly does not inspire confidence in giving the Home Office the kind of powers that are provided for in Clause 9. I know that the Minister will tell me that these powers relate only to the notification of a decision to deprive, but it is the criteria against which the conclusion can be reached to give notification of a decision without notice that are of concern.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this late Thursday afternoon, and those who tabled Amendments 25, 26, 27, 28, 32 and 33, for their contributions, which have made it a very lively debate. Some 14 noble Lords talked about wider deprivation, which is obviously not in Clause 9, and five noble Lords spoke on Clause 9 itself. I would like to address some of the most irresponsible scaremongering surrounding Clause 9 that I have probably ever heard. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts says, there have been some quite overblown comments today.
It is very important to be clear about what Clause 9 is and what it is not. It is not, as my noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Hunt of Wirral said, an amendment to the deprivation power that has been in force for 100 years. It does not allow the Home Secretary to remove citizenship on a whim. I look forward to a conversation with my noble friend Lady Mobarik, as I was concerned by her level of fear on this. Clause 9 will not strip 6 million people of their British citizenship without warning. It is not targeted at particular ethnic minorities, and it does not change the reason why a person may be deprived of their British citizenship. It does not remove the right of appeal against a decision to deprive law-abiding British citizens, like my noble friend Lady Mobarik, of their citizenship; they have nothing to fear from Clause 9, nor does the mother of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, or the grandparents of my noble friend Lady Warsi. They could not be deprived because they have done nothing wrong.
I might add here that the people who need to declare any interest or concern are not those of the Windrush generation, not Jews, not Muslims, and indeed not Catholics such as myself with dual nationality, but terrorists—people who would actually do us harm. I glean from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that she does at least support the removal of citizenship in fraudulent applications, if I understood her correctly.
I will start by addressing the amendments relating specifically to Clause 9, and then move on to the amendments that focus on the wider deprivation power. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for Amendment 28. I reassure him that the Government have repeatedly made clear that all deprivation decisions are taken carefully, after full consideration of the facts, and in accordance with domestic and international law. I do not think he disputes that. The decisions are, as he knows, already subject to judicial oversight via the statutory right of appeal, and individuals are also able to seek judicial review proceedings, where appropriate, on any aspect of the decision-making process not captured by the statutory right of appeal.
In addition, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration has a wide remit to inspect any aspect of the immigration and nationality system, and at any time can review the use of deprivation powers. The Home Secretary can also commission specific reviews, as desired, which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred to, particularly with regards to their frequency. I look forward to speaking further with him on that that before Report. He will also be aware that the Supreme Court of Appeal and SIAC, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, have recently affirmed the Home Secretary’s competence to decide on matters of national security.
The noble Lord commented, as did the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on the number of cases in 2017 and the status of figures since then. The rise in 2017 is due to the large increase in global terrorism. More broadly, I want to assure the noble Lord that the Home Office is committed to publishing its transparency report into the use of disruptive powers, and will do so in due course. I look forward to continuing to engage with him on this matter and others pertaining to this Bill.
My noble friend Lady Warsi asked about the numbers, and I think others did, since 2010. There was an average of 19 between 2010 and 2018. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, also asked about the comparison with Australia and New Zealand, and kindly shared his papers on this with myself and my officials. I have listened to his points extremely carefully, and I intend to consider them carefully and to continue to engage with him outside this Committee.
Amendments 25 and 26 would mean that we could not deprive a person of British citizenship purely because we did not know where they were and could not get the notice to them. We would be reliant on people whose conduct is serious enough to warrant deprivation keeping in contact. It is not correct to say that we will not ever have to notify someone of deprivation. Of course, if they come back to the UK—and most of them are outside the UK—they will find out; if they do not, one presumes that they did not try to when they came back or do not care.
I move now to the amendments relating to the wider power to deprive someone of citizenship. This is an extremely serious matter and is rightly reserved for those whose conduct involves very high harm or poses a threat to public safety, or those who obtained their citizenship by fraudulent means. The UK Government are absolutely clear that no one citizen should have the right to destroy the lives of other citizens in this country.
As I have mentioned, it cannot be right that we risk the UK’s interests to make contact with dangerous individuals who wish us harm, nor is it right to allow them to exploit a loophole in legislation and retain the benefits of British citizenship simply by removing themselves from contact with the Government or relocating to a place where we could not reasonably send them notice. Amendment 32 would completely remove the ability of the Home Secretary to make a deprivation decision in relation to those high harm individuals. Deprivation would then be possible only where a person has obtained citizenship by fraudulent means.
We have sadly often seen the effect of terrorist attacks on our way of life or the impact of serious organised crime on the vulnerable. The threat picture, as noble Lords have spoken about, is in direct correlation to deprivation—in other words, an increase in the threat picture leads to an increase in the number of deprivations. The 464 figure that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, cited combines both the fraud and conducive to the public good figures. It cannot be right that these people keep their British passports and remain free to come in and out of the UK as they please. It is the Government’s duty to keep the public safe, and we do not make any apologies for seeking to do so.
But I understand the concerns about “secret” decision-making. Deprivation decisions are made following very careful consideration of advice from officials and lawyers and in accordance with international law. Some of that consideration involves sensitive information and evidence, as noble Lords might be aware, and it would not be in the public interest if that evidence were made public. For example, it could jeopardise ongoing criminal investigations or undercover operations and thus harm those working on behalf of the Government to keep us safe. That is why appeals against a deprivation decision relying on such evidence are heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, or SIAC. Amendment 33 would remove the ability to rely on this sensitive evidence, because with no means to securely air it at the appeal stage, the Government would not be able to take deprivation decisions in these cases. Also, removing the public interest test for certification of deprivation decisions into SIAC risks creating an anomaly within the immigration and nationality system as grounds for certification are the same regardless of case type, and the special advocate system and rules of court ensure that any evidence which can be heard in open court is done so.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I think my noble friend has been misadvised in characterising Amendment 27 as imposing any new or further restriction on the power to deprive in the event of obtaining nationality by fraud. That simply is not so; they have misconstrued that clause. Can I ask her a very narrow question? She referred in her speech to the use of deprivation in cases of serious organised crime. Did she mean serious organised crime apart from terrorism?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It could encompass both, but in the context of what I am talking about, some serious organised crime is outside of terrorism.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Can I just a question that relates to that? A picture has been painted of a group of people darting over borders with their passports, getting away with serious organised crime and terrorism. I wondered why somebody did not stop them if they were involved in serious organised crime or terrorism and bring them in, as it were. What about those people involved in serious organised crime and darting over borders who do not have a parent or grandparent that means they are potentially able to live in another country? Are the Government suggesting that the harm British citizens are being protected from is all committed by people who are coincidentally related to somebody which means that they can go and live somewhere else? Are there no home-grown, with nowhere else to go types doing any of this harm that threatens British citizens?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Of course there are home-grown people trying to do harm to our British citizens, but this is one of a number of powers to try to reduce high harm activity against the people of this country.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
As a follow-on from the noble Baroness’s question, I have a question that I asked in my initial intervention. Why should they be treated differently? Say one person is involved in serious organised crime, such as major drug dealing, child trafficking or sex trafficking offences, and another person commits exactly that same offence, and say both of them were born in the United Kingdom, raised in the United Kingdom, have never lived anywhere else and have never taken citizenship of any other country. If they commit exactly the same crime, why should one be told to leave and the other not?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, what I think I have tried to explain today—and it will be obvious that are clearly differences between us—is that, where the highest harm individuals can rely on another citizenship, the Home Secretary has within his or her power the ability to remove that citizenship. Of course, the one citizenship that is protected is when someone is only a British citizen and of no other territory.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, this debate has been very moving in parts and extremely thoughtful, and I thank everybody across the House who contributed.
I, for one, am not unsympathetic to what the Government are trying to do. To tackle my noble friend Lord Hunt full on, I think he said that if Parliament does not accept Clause 9 then the Committee, or Parliament, will try to stop the Government from doing it. From what I have heard from the debate today, I think that is precisely the mood of the Committee and the conclusion that we have reached.
There are a number of alternative amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, have come to blows, if you like, as to the purport of Amendment 27. There are parts of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that I find attractive, in particular removing the whole of Clause 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that, in compliance with Article 1 of the 1961 UN Statelessness Convention, British citizenship is only withheld from a stateless child born in the UK where the nationality of a parent is available to the child immediately, without any legal or administrative hurdles.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I again refer to my membership of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We have produced detailed reports on many aspects of the Bill, including on this matter.
It is surely a basic right that nobody should be stateless. This is fundamental. Stateless people have fewer rights—they have virtually none—and they are vulnerable. I have tabled this amendment to avoid statelessness.
As things stand, stateless children born in the UK are covered by this provision in the Bill. Prior to the British Nationality Act 1981, all children born in the UK were British under jus soli. As I said earlier, I served in the Commons at the time—indeed, I was on the Public Bill Committee which dealt with this Bill for many long weeks—and we had a long discussion about jus soli, and I only hope that the position I took then is the same as the one I am taking now—in other words, in opposition to the provision. I think I can claim that I have been consistent over 40 years; I hope so, but if anyone wants to look it up in order to disprove it, I will listen to them.
Clause 10 has a new requirement that will make it more difficult for stateless children to acquire British citizenship. It puts another hurdle in the way of acquiring that citizenship. The onus will now be on children—or, if they are very young, the people responsible for them —to produce the evidence, unless the Home Secretary is satisfied that the child is unable to acquire another nationality. The provision will effectively mean that a child born in the UK, or their parents or carers on their behalf, will have to prove that they could not reasonably have acquired another nationality—so the onus is on the child, or the parents or carers, to prove that. That may be quite a difficult point to prove, and the onus is switched in allocating the burden of responsibility. That could be especially hard for children who do not have significant support or access to the relevant documents. For example, the children of refugees might find it very difficult to have the necessary documentation or to be able to produce the evidence, so it would put a significant additional burden on them.
It is an anomaly that when children become adults they can apply. It remains an oddity that a child can remain stateless for some years until they become an adult, when they can then apply. What is the advantage to anyone of having a child stateless for that period? It certainly cannot be in the best interests of the child, and that surely must be the bottom line. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child always talks about what is in the best interests of the child; Article 7 says that a child should be registered as having a nationality immediately after birth. That is fairly clear. Furthermore, it says that a contracting state shall grant its nationality to a person born in its territory who would otherwise be stateless. With this clause, the Government are going against these provisions in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
It is difficult to see how Clause 10 complies with the United Kingdom’s obligations under both the 1961 United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is an unnecessary measure that makes things even more difficult. I can see no argument, not even the security arguments that the Minister advanced in the previous debate, for putting this hurdle in the way of children who might otherwise be stateless. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Dubs and the proposal that Clause 10 should not stand part of the Bill. I put on record my thanks to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for the very helpful work that it has done on the Bill, with a whole raft of very useful reports. According to ILPA and the Bar Council, this clause contravenes the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, and that should give us pause for thought. Research by the European Network on Statelessness shows how some children in very vulnerable circumstances will be affected, as my noble friend said, and found that there can be good reasons for delays in registering a child’s nationality.
To my mind, the justification that the clause is needed because there has been a significant increase in the number of registrations of stateless children smacks of the culture of disbelief and suspicion criticised by Wendy Williams in the Windrush report. Surely it is to be celebrated that more children are exercising their rights—no thanks to the Home Office, which has been dilatory in making children and their parents aware of these rights and in removing the barriers to registering them. It is thanks to the hard work of organisations such as the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens that more children and parents have become aware of the right to registration. As I say, this is to be commended, not cracked down on as if it were some kind of crime.
As the JCHR observes, and Amendment 31 addresses —a point made also by my noble friend Lord Dubs—it is difficult to see how this clause is compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. While the Home Hoffice human rights memorandum states that it has considered the best interests of the children affected, it is not clear from it how such a clause is in their best interests, so can the Minister spell out exactly how this clause meets the best interests of children affected?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I agree with the noble Baroness that we have done good work on the Bill. On a more serious note, perhaps I may say how much we appreciate the chairmanship of the right honourable Harriet Harman MP, whose recent bereavement has saddened us so much.
I will speak to both Amendments 30 and 31. As has been said by other noble Lords, Clause 10 amends the British Nationality Act to introduce new requirements for the registration of a stateless child—a child born in the UK—and could make it even more difficult for them to acquire British nationality, to which there are already significant hurdles. I could not agree more with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Why should it be a problem that children are becoming stateless and ceasing to have the security of nationality?
Under Clause 10, the Home Secretary has to be satisfied that the child is unable to acquire another nationality. That puts that child in the position of having to prove that they could not reasonably have acquired another nationality. The policy rationale seems to be a suspicion that parents are wilfully causing their child’s statelessness—the culture of disbelief that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to. As colleagues and the JCHR say, it is difficult to see how the best interests of the child, as required by the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, are served by the new test in this provision. How is it in that child’s interests to be left stateless?
Indeed, asserts the JCHR, Clause 10
“risks punishing the child for a perceived failure”
on the part of their parent or carer, which is obviously through no fault of their own. However, the UN convention does not impose a requirement on the parent to exhaust all avenues to seek the citizenship of another state. So Clause 10 could move the UK away from the convention. I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, quoted ILFA and the Bar Council as saying that they do indeed think that this is a contravention of the convention, and I can see why. Amendment 30 is an attempt to move the UK back towards the intention of the convention by saying that British citizenship could only be withheld
“where the nationality of a parent is available to the child immediately, without any legal or administrative hurdles.”
Amendment 31 aims to make the best interests of the child central to the decision-making.
Finally, in addition to the risk of alienation from our society of individual children, it cannot be in the interests of British society as a whole for young people born here to be excluded from sharing citizenship and thus rootedness in their community.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support the amendments and the proposal that Clause 10 should not stand part, and my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle has also signed them. We should be making it as easy as possible for children to obtain a nationality if they are already stateless. Quite honestly, who dreams up these cruel clauses at the Home Office? Do they not have a heart when they are writing these things? Do they not understand the impact that they can have on children through no fault of the child? The decision should be made purely in the best interests of the child, as provided by Amendment 31. I hope that the Government change course and make this as easy and straightforward as possible. People outside are looking in and are judging this to be cruel, unpleasant and perfectly horrendous.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I am trying to imagine how it could ever be in the best interests of a child born and raised in this country not to be given the right to be a citizen of this country. In what possible circumstances could we decide that it would be in the best interests of someone born and raised in this country to be decreed, at the age of 13 or 14, a citizen of another state? That is the situation. You could almost forget the 1961 convention, human rights and so on; we are simply talking about the best interests of the child. You can then back it up with all the international stuff on top. I support these amendments.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, Clause 10 talks about, to quote the Explanatory Notes,
“cases where parents have chosen not to register their child’s birth, which would have acquired their own nationality for their child, which means that the child can register as a British citizen under the statelessness provisions.”
I seriously question how many parents have such a detailed understanding of nationality law that they choose not to register their child’s birth in order to register their child later under statelessness provisions to give them British citizenship. That is just not credible. How many cases can the Minister cite where parents have deliberately not registered the nationality of their child in order for that child to get British citizenship under the statelessness provisions?
This strikes me as a cynical attempt to tighten the law, in a similar way to that in which the Bill tightens the provisions around modern slavery, to give the impression of being tough—bordering on xenophobic —on immigration, when there really is not a problem. It should not be part of the Bill. The power in this clause given to the Secretary of State to deny British citizenship to a child, unless she is satisfied that the child cannot reasonably acquire the nationality of its parents, needs to be qualified at the very least.
Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights
“to ensure that British citizenship is only withheld”
from a stateless child born in the UK
“where the nationality of a parent is available to the child immediately”,
without any legal or administrative hurdles. We will support this amendment if this clause stands part of the Bill.
These are decisions being taken by parents and the Secretary of State about an innocent child who has no influence over what is being decided about their future—decisions about something as fundamental as citizenship. For that reason alone, we strongly support Amendment 31: that the best interests of the stateless child born in the UK must be central to any decision whether to grant or refuse British citizenship.
This is what we have come to: seeking to deny stateless children born in the UK British citizenship. As I said on a previous group, British citizenship has benefits to society as well as to the individual concerned. This is not just about the best interests of the child, although it should be; it is about what is in the best interests of society. Keeping children stateless as they grow into adults surely increases their chance of being radicalised and becoming a threat to society. On the last group, the Minister kept talking about high-harm individuals. All the evidence points to one of the most important factors in radicalisation being people not feeling part of society or of this country. Keeping a child stateless surely will increase the danger of that person growing into a terrorist.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, my name has been added to the proposal to oppose Clause 10 standing part of the Bill, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. As has been said, Clause 10 is intended to disentitle stateless children in the UK from their statutory right to British citizenship. It proposes amending and restricting a vital safeguard in British nationality law that prevents and reduces childhood statelessness. Under our international obligations, we have safeguards that mean that a child who was born in the UK and has always been stateless can acquire British citizenship after five years of residing here.
Through Clause 10, the Government now propose to restrict and amend that obligation. Clause 10 requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a child was unable to acquire another nationality before being permitted to register as a British citizen. That creates an additional and unjustified hurdle to stateless children’s registration as British citizens, which could be difficult for a child or those acting on their behalf to prove.
Rather than helping such children attain citizenship, the Government are intent on putting up more barriers and making it more difficult for children under 18 to be registered. They seem to want to try to deny citizenship, particularly citizenship of the place where the child was born and lives—in fact, the only place they know. No doubt the Government will explain what substantial wrong they consider this clause addresses and what hard evidence there is that that wrong is actually significant, as opposed to it being claimed as such.
Clause 10 can only be highly damaging to a child’s personal development and their feelings of security and belonging, with this exclusion and potential alienation being inflicted in their formative years. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to the serious implications that can have. There has been no assessment made by the Government of the impact this proposal will have on those children affected, which suggests that this issue does not trouble the Government. As my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett said, how can this be in the best interests of the child? This issue is addressed in Amendment 31, reflecting a JCHR recommendation.
In the Commons, we supported an amendment to Clause 10 which sought to ensure that the Government act in compliance with Article 1 of the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the Government having failed to protect the existing safeguards, which are in line with international law, in this Bill. The amendment altered Clause 10, so that British citizenship was withheld from a stateless child born in the UK only when a parent’s nationality was available to the child immediately, without any legal or administrative hurdles. That is as per Amendment 30, moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs, which also reflects a JCHR recommendation.
I am probably being overoptimistic in hoping that there will be a positive government reply to this stand part debate. At the very least, if my fears are justified and we do not get a positive reply from our point of view, I hope that we will be told what the hard evidence is that Clause 10 actually addresses a significant wrong, rather than one being claimed as such.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for tabling Amendments 30 and 31 to Clause 10, which requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a child aged between five and 17 cannot reasonably acquire another nationality in order to be registered under the stateless child provisions. I also note the opposition to and concerns about this clause of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, should they not be satisfied by my response. In an ideal world, we would not need to include this clause, but current trends mean that we feel we must.
That goes to the question that the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, asked about the figures. In 2017, in the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, even though the applicant was eligible for the grant of British citizenship under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the BNA 1981, and despite the fact that they could acquire the nationality of their parents, the judge recognised that his conclusion
“opens an obvious route to abuse”.
The figures bear that out. In 2010 there were five cases; in 2018 they peaked at 1,775. There is obvious evidence that this is happening. I rest my case there.
Clause 10 has been developed in response to concerns that a number of non-settled parents, many of whom did not have permission to be in the UK at the time of their child’s birth, have chosen not to register their child’s birth with their own authorities in order to qualify under the current child statelessness provisions. This in turn can impact on the parents’ immigration status.
Amendment 30 would add a new condition to Clause 10, so that a child is defined as being able to acquire a nationality from birth only if there were no legal or administrative barriers to them doing so. That would mean that the parents I have talked about could, in theory, benefit from the stateless child provisions by not registering their child’s birth. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, it is very easy to register a child’s birth. The parents simply need to complete a form and provide supporting information about their identity, status and residence and the child’s birth. I do not think that is difficult.
I appreciate that the noble Lord’s use of the term “barriers” might have been intended to suggest something more significant and assure him that the clause already reflects our expectation that children who cannot reasonably acquire another nationality should not be excluded. The UNHCR’s document Guidelines on Statelessness no. 4: Ensuring Every Child’s Right to Acquire a Nationality through Articles 1-4 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness recognises that the responsibility to grant nationality to children who would otherwise be stateless is not engaged where a child could acquire the nationality of a parent through registration or a simple procedure. The genuinely stateless child will not be affected. This is about those who can reasonably acquire another nationality. It is not about the Windrush generation—they are entitled to be British.
We do not think it is fair that parents can effectively secure a quicker route to British citizenship by choosing not to register their child’s birth. In doing so, they are depriving their child of a nationality, which is not only about identity and belonging, as I heard one noble Lord say, but can allow them to acquire a passport or identity document and the ability to travel overseas to see family, for example.
They are also taking advantage of a provision intended to protect those who are genuinely stateless. We want them still to be able to benefit, but we want to change the registration provisions so that parents cannot effectively choose statelessness for their children and then benefit from the provisions. We think it is appropriate that families should take reasonable steps to acquire a nationality for their child. We will set out in guidance the sort of steps that we think are reasonable, and applications will be considered on their individual basis.
Amendment 31 would mean that we could not regard a child as being able to acquire another nationality, and so decline their British citizenship application, if it would not be in the best interests of the child to gain that nationality. Noble Lords have pointed out the value they see in a child being able to secure and acquire a nationality, and it is difficult to see why parents might argue that it is not in their child’s best interests to share their status. We have already taken into account that some countries’ nationalities may be problematic for a child to acquire. The proposed clause reflects our expectation that a parent should not need to try to acquire a nationality for their child if it is not reasonable for them to do so.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister clarify something? She gave us some figures; I did not have a chance to write to them down. She talked about the figures peaking at, I think, somewhere around 1,700 cases. Is that the number of stateless children born in the UK who are granted British citizenship, or are they cases where parents deliberately chose not to register their child’s birth in order to take advantage of the system?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I assume that it is the latter, but I will write to the noble Lord with the details of the figures I have here. In particular, I will give him more detail about the countries from which these cases derive.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I want to follow up, because the Minister has answered the question I was going to ask. She mentioned that the 1,700 figure—I cannot remember what year it was for—was evidence of abuse, and as she just replied to my noble friend, she is assuming that the parents in those cases could not apply. It seems to me that there is no evidence of abuse. I am thinking of the strengthened safeguards in Amendments 30 and 31, especially Amendment 31. The Home Secretary must be satisfied that “in all the circumstances” it is reasonable, et cetera. The Minister referred to circumstances where parents cannot access the authorities of the relevant state. One can think of dozens of countries around the world in conflict, civil war or whatever chaos. Adding the words
“without any legal or administrative barriers”
would go with the flow of the Home Secretary having to be satisfied that it is reasonable to refuse, and I really cannot see why the Home Office cannot accept Amendment 30, even if it is claiming that Amendment 31 is unnecessary because it already cares about the best interests of the child.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I shall write to noble Lords about this in more detail, because it is quite detailed, and explain where the figures have derived from. I was actually quoting the judge in his conclusion that an “obvious route to abuse” would be opened. I shall send the figures to the noble Baroness. On case sampling, many of the cases have a poor immigration history, with 79% of the parents having no leave at the time of the birth and only 16% having such leave, but I will outline it to noble Lords in greater detail and they can draw their own conclusion.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I have tried to follow the Minister’s reply, and I am bound to say that I too am a little confused about these figures. I think she has just not yet made her case. Please could she give us more information before we get to Report? If not, we will not be persuaded by this. I may not have been quick enough to pick up all the nuances—I do not think any of us were, really; it was quite difficult. I look forward to getting more information from her; we shall have to listen to what she has to say. I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed to the debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.