House of Commons
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
09:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 0 / Noes: 48 - Question accordingly negatived.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that there is an urgent question on Ukraine later, but I wonder whether the Government have given any indication that they intend to make a statement on our relations with China, given that China has done nothing to condemn the Ukrainian incursion. Will the Government also make a statement on what is happening in the Balkans? I understand that missiles are arriving in Serbia, ready to destabilise the Dayton agreement and create a new crisis there.
Mr Speaker
I have been given no notification that anything is forthcoming. What I would say is that we have the urgent question; if you are able to catch my eye, you may be able to press the Minister and raise the matter with him. Those important points will have been noted by Government Front Benchers. I am sure that they will take the comments you have just made very seriously and recognise their importance.
Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill
Friday 25th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 View all Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 February 2022 - (25 Feb 2022)
Mr Speaker
Before we get to proceedings, I remind Members of the difference between Report and Third Reading. The scope of the debate on Report is the amendments that I have selected; the scope of the Third Reading debate to follow will be the whole Bill as it stands after Report. Members may wish to consider those points and then decide at which stage or stages they want to try to catch my eye.
Clause 2
Offence of conduct relating to marriage of persons under 18
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 11, leave out “(2)” and insert “(3)”
This amendment would insert the subsection which provides for the new offence of carrying out conduct for the purpose of causing a child to enter into a marriage after section 121(3) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Policing and Crime Act 2014 rather than after section 121(2) of that Act.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, page 1, line 15, leave out “threats or any other form or coercion” and insert “threats, any other form of coercion or deception, and whether or not it is carried out in England and Wales”.
This amendment would state expressly that for the new offence of carrying out conduct for the purpose of causing a child to enter into a marriage, the conduct may take place in England and Wales or elsewhere and may, but does not have to, involve deception.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment would remove the cross-reference to the new offence of carrying out conduct for the purpose of causing a child to enter into a marriage.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 3, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
‘(6) After subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) A person commits an offence under subsection (3A) only if—
(a) the conduct is for the purpose of causing the child to enter into a marriage in England or Wales,
(b) at the time of the conduct, the person or child is habitually resident in England and Wales, or
(c) at the time of the conduct, the child is a United Kingdom national who—
(i) has been habitually resident in England and Wales, and
(ii) is not habitually resident or domiciled in Scotland or Northern Ireland.”’
This amendment would mean that a person may commit the new offence of carrying out conduct for the purpose of causing a child to enter into a marriage only if the conduct is for the purpose of causing a child to enter into a marriage in England or Wales, or the person or the child has a specified connection to England and Wales.
Amendment 5, page 2, line 4s, leave out subsection (7).
This amendment would in respect of the new offence of carrying out conduct for the purpose of causing a child to enter into a marriage remove the exception for marriages of 16 and 17 year olds that take place in Scotland or Northern Ireland, so that conduct related to such marriages may amount to an offence.
Mrs Latham
I am pleased to speak to these amendments, which I am confident will make the Bill clearer and cleaner, and provide more effective, targeted and proportionate safeguarding. Before I come to the details of the amendments, I remind hon. Members of the purpose of clause 2, to which all five amendments relate.
Clause 2 will create a new part of the forced marriage offence within the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Currently, it is only an offence to cause a child to marry if violence, threats or another form of coercion are used, or if the child lacks capacity to consent to marry under the Mental Health Capacity Act 2005. It is not an offence to cause a child to marry if coercion is not used and the child is not covered by that Act. As I set out on Second Reading in November, this is a real loophole. To ensure that all children are protected, the Bill needs to ensure that it is always an offence to cause a child under the age of 18 to enter into a marriage, whatever the methods used.
I propose to start by going through the first three broadly technical amendments, beginning with amendment 3. The existing offence of forced marriage contains a subsidiary offence of deceiving someone into going overseas with the aim of forcing them into marriage there. That is an important addition, because such behaviour is far from uncommon. As it stands, the Bill expressly extends that deception offence to encompass the behaviour entailed in the new offence. However, on reflection, Ministers and I feel that it is not necessary. The new offence that we are adding, of causing a child to marry, refers to
“any conduct for the purpose of causing a child to enter into a marriage before the child’s eighteenth birthday, whether or not the conduct amounts to violence, threats or another form of coercion.”
That would include deceiving a child into going overseas. That means that the provision in the original Bill is unnecessary duplication, and it makes the law less clear than it could and should be. Amendment 3 would remove the express extension of the deception offence to cover the conduct entailed in the new offence of causing a child to marry. I would like to put beyond doubt, on the record, that that new offence does include deceiving a child, be that into going overseas or otherwise.
To reinforce this, amendment 2 adds specific reference to “deception” as one of the types of conduct that it might encompass, as well as specifying that it does not matter whether or not the conduct was carried out in England and Wales. Finally, and purely consequentially, amendment 1 merely moves the new offence of causing a child to marry from before the deception offence to after it, where it more naturally fits.
Amendments 4 and 5 make substantive changes to the nature of the offence, in such a way, I believe, as to improve the Bill. They relate to the jurisdictional scope of the offence—the scenarios that can lead to prosecution, based on where the parties are, where they live, what their nationalities are, and where the marriage is to take place. Currently, the new offence of causing a child to marry essentially inherits the jurisdictional scope of the existing forced marriage offence. It also required a carve-out provision—clause 2(7) of the original Bill—which removed liability where marriages of 16 and 17-year-olds take place in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Hon. Members will be aware that that was necessary because marriage policy is devolved and the age of marriage is different in those countries.
On reflection with Ministers, that presented two problems. First, those wishing to carry out a child marriage in England or Wales would, in many cases, have been able to get around the offence simply by having the marriage take place in Scotland or Northern Ireland—I refer to that as the “Gretna Green” exception. Secondly, the law as drafted would inadvertently include UK nationals resident in Scotland, and Northern Ireland residents who, perfectly legally under their own law and under the law of another country, wished to marry at 16 or 17 in that third country. That could be seen as a lack of respect for the devolution settlement. It is evidently not appropriate for the law to reach that far, but on the other hand, we would like to close the Gretna Green loophole. I am therefore grateful to Ministers for their help and support in reaching a solution that both respects the devolution settlement and removes that dangerous loophole.
Amendment 5, which is the first part of the solution, removes the current exemption in clause 2(7) for marriages of 16 and 17-year-olds taking place in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That will remove the Gretna Green exception. However, the offence would then cover all UK nationals marrying overseas, which could include those living in or domiciled in Scotland or Northern Ireland, where child marriage is—unfortunately—still legal. Amendment 4 will therefore make the jurisdictional provisions more proportionate and targeted while still ensuring maximum safeguarding. That will provide that a person can be prosecuted in one of three situations.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend, like me, welcome the fact that Northern Ireland is consulting on raising the minimum age of marriage to 18? Will she join me in expressing a desire that the Scottish Government should reflect on that and do the same?
Mrs Latham
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Northern Ireland is consulting, and I think that Scotland is about to do so. That is so important, because, if they do not change, they will not reflect the sustainable development goals that they have signed up to along with us. If they want to abide by those goals, they will have to move forward on that. I look forward to us being one nation all doing the same thing. I thank him for that point.
The first situation is if a marriage is to take place in England or Wales. It can never be right for us to allow the marriage of a child to happen within our borders. The second situation is if the perpetrator or victim is habitually resident—they ordinarily live—in England and Wales. That will ensure that we protect children who live in this country and that those people who live here obey our rules and norms. The final situation is if the child is a UK national who has been habitually resident in England or Wales and who is neither habitually resident nor domiciled in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Domiciled is a slightly different concept from habitual residence: it means the place that someone regards as their permanent home, even if they are actually living somewhere else. So, all UK nationals who have at some point lived in England or Wales, unless they live in or have their permanent home in Scotland or Northern Ireland, will be covered.
One of the effects of those changes is, as I indicated, to show respect for the devolution settlement in a more effective and meaningful way than the Bill does currently. The offence would no longer encompass situations where a parent arranges for their 16 or 17-year-old UK national child who lives in Scotland or Northern Ireland to marry outside the UK, so it would not stop such Scottish or Northern Irish children from exercising the rights under the laws of those countries.
We did consider removing the UK national criteria of the offence in its entirety, but that would mean that, when it came to marriages happening outside England and Wales, we would have had to rely solely on habitual residence, which is a fluid property that can be lost if a person has sufficiently severed their ties with England and Wales. The Girls Not Brides UK coalition, who are experts in this area, were concerned that that could cause perverse behaviour, namely that parents might keep their children overseas before causing them to marry until such time as they lost their habitual residence and, therefore, the protection of the law.
We have therefore kept the UK national criteria, but only for a child who has been habitually resident in England and Wales at some point in their life, to ensure intervention in matters overseas only if there is a reasonable connection to England and Wales. Out of respect for the devolution settlement, the offence would apply only if the child were not at that time habitually resident or domiciled in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
The amendments will create a more rounded and focused regime. As such, I commend them to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
I am delighted to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), both for her continued steerage of this vital Bill and for tabling these important amendments. It will not be me who responds to the final stage of the Bill, so, if I may, I will put on record my appreciation, and that of the entire House and I think the whole country, for the work she has done over her whole parliamentary career.
Mrs Latham
May I begin by thanking the Public Bill Committee, which met on 12 January to consider the Bill in detail? The Committee submitted the Bill to detailed scrutiny, and I am confident that the cross-party spirit that has run throughout this process has made it a much better piece of legislation.
After Second Reading in this House on 19 November last year, I was inundated with media and interview requests to talk about child marriage. Many of the issues and specific cases that hon. and right hon. Members from across the House raised were ones that there is not enough awareness of. Indeed, I am absolutely delighted that two of the incredibly brave survivors of child marriage whose stories I told in November, Payzee Mahmod and Farhana Raval, are here today in the Gallery to witness this historic moment, when the House of Commons will vote to end child marriage in this country.
Child marriage exists as both a legal and a social phenomenon. We in this House can, and I hope that we will, change the legal position by criminalising those who arrange child marriages and refusing to recognise unions involving children. However, the social aspect—raising awareness of child marriage among children, parents, educators, social care professionals and community leaders—is equally important. We must send a message that child marriage is illegal and is unacceptable under any circumstances.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
May I take this opportunity to commend my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this most important of issues? She has shown hon. Members and the public exactly why child marriage is child abuse and why it is absolutely right that we put an end to it.
Mrs Latham
I thank my right hon. Friend for that, and he is absolutely right. I know that he, too, has been passionate about raising awareness about this issue. If it were not for his now being Health Secretary, I would not be doing this today, because he had the private Member’s Bill, which I never got, and he generously gave it over to me. He did that because he knew that I had been working with the charities represented in the Public Gallery for many years. So I thank him for the help he has given in my being able to do this.
It is undeniable that changing this law and making it unequivocally clear that it will be illegal to arrange any child marriage, whether for a boy or a girl, in England and Wales, irrespective of alleged consent, coercion or persuasion, is a huge step in the right direction, because many children are brought up to believe that this is the norm, but it is not the norm in this country to be married as a child. This legislation will send a huge message out and that is the purpose of the Bill. Let me briefly mention the effect of each of its key provisions. First, the Bill will remove the exception that currently allows 16 and 17-year-olds to get married and to enter into a civil partnership with parental or judicial consent in England and Wales. People who are too young to consent for themselves are too young to be married. Getting married is a huge decision, no matter at what age someone decides to marry. The existing law has been in place for more than 70 years and reflects social values from a different time, one in which a school leaving age was 14 and the average age for marriage was just 23. Many girls like my mother left school at 14 and went to work. In that context, a marriage at 16 was not unreasonable. Of course, there were many shotgun weddings before the age of 18 where a pregnancy was involved, because in the eyes of many being pregnant without being married was a sin. This was before contraception and life is completely different now.
Now, the Government have legislated to ensure that all children must be in education or training until 18, providing greater opportunities for academic and professional development for all children. Furthermore, the average age for marriage is now over 30. There are substantially fewer than 200 children utilising this exception every year, which is evidence that as a society we are moving away from this practice. So there is a real need to remove that exception. When I have tried to bring this before the House previously, I have been told by previous Ministers, not the excellent Ministers we have in place today, that it was not relevant, because there were so few cases and it did not really matter.
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend says that it is the children using this exemption, but in Committee, where I supported her, she made the point powerfully that it is not children using the exemption, but their family members, who are seeking to pressurise them into marriage. That entirely shows the point of this piece of legislation.
Mrs Latham
My hon. Friend is right: this is about coercion, persuasion and accepting that this is the norm in a family. It is not the norm, and should not be, in this country. If a child is unable to sign that piece of paper to say that they are getting married, they are too young to have somebody else do it for them, and to persuade them and make them get married at that stage. So this Bill is very, very important. The impact on those children who wish to take advantage of the exception will be minimal. They will only have to wait a maximum of two years to marry; if they are 16 and a half, it will be only 18 months. So we are talking about only a very short time, although I do accept that when someone is 16, two years seems a very long time—in reality, as all know in this Chamber, that is not true. The impact on victims of child marriage around the world of England and Wales setting its legal aid of marriage unambiguously at 18 will be enormous.
The second key provision will make it a crime to organise any unregistered marriage involving a child in England and Wales. This is a huge part of the problem we are trying to solve. As I set out on Second Reading, the cases of child marriage in the UK that cause the most concern often do not show up in the statistics. Of the cases involving potential child marriage reported to the Home Office-commissioned national honour- based abuse helpline, delivered by Karma Nirvana—representatives of which are in the Gallery today—in the year to September 2021, only four related to civil marriages. There are almost 20 times as many cases that involve only a religious ceremony—more than 95% of all cases—and those are the people who go to Karma Nirvana for help, so Members can imagine how many do not do that and are persuaded to be married.
We know from the experiences of Payzee—who is also in the Gallery—among many others that the religious ceremony is the most important part of the marriage in the eyes of the family and the community of the child. They do not need the registered part: they are not interested in that. It is the unregistered part that makes the difference for them, and currently, there is no age limit on an unregistered marriage. The only requirement is that it is not forced, and we know that under the current law, proving a forced marriage where it involves children is extremely difficult. The Girls Not Brides UK coalition, which has done so much in the campaign to end child marriage, has been involved in shocking cases where the child being married was under 10 years old.
Therefore, my second key provision updates forced marriage legislation to create a new offence of arranging the marriage of a child. This offence will be triggered by any conduct that causes a child under 18 to enter into such a marriage, whether civil or religious. Crucially, unlike with forced marriage, there is no need to prove coercion or control. This takes the onus away from the child to show that their marriage was forced, and will make prosecutions easier and the deterrent that much stronger. I should make it absolutely clear that this criminal offence is not about criminalising the child. The child is the victim in every single case; the criminals are the adults who organised these marriages.
A key provision that I would like to highlight is the provision of extraterritoriality. The Girls Not Brides UK coalition, as well as the Government’s forced marriage unit, have seen plenty of evidence to suggest that very often children who live in the United Kingdom are being taken abroad, often to a country where extended family live, in order to be married. Sometimes, they are taken abroad for just a few weeks, but sometimes they are taken abroad for many months or years—as in the case of Farhana, who is also in the Gallery today. It is crucial that the offence captures that conduct, because it is just as damaging to the future prospects and life chances of the victims as a marriage that takes place in the United Kingdom. If a child is out of education for months or even years, they will find it much harder to enter the workplace and become economically productive, if they ever do so.
I have been working very hard with the Government since the Committee stage to ensure that the Bill is comprehensive and covers as many situations as possible. My thanks go to the Ministers and the teams of officials who have worked so hard to get it right, resulting in the amendments on Report. I did not want to come back next year or the year after with more amendments; I wanted the Bill to be right from the start, because loopholes need to be closed. Therefore, I am delighted that this Bill will cover not just marriages taking place in England and Wales, but marriages anywhere in the world involving a child or a person who lives in England or Wales, as well as those involving UK national children who have at any point lived in England or Wales. That offers a huge amount of protection to all children growing up in this country, and removes any incentive for parents to leave the UK in order to avoid our marriage law.
Having considered the Bill’s key provisions, I shall briefly reflect on its importance. Primarily, the Bill is important because it will offer protection from marriage to every single child who grows up in England and Wales, forever. At a stroke, it will stop both registered and unregistered marriages under the age of 18 and ensure that this protection cannot be avoided simply by someone temporarily leaving the country. I often talk about safeguarding futures, because that is what we are doing: safeguarding children’s futures so that they can have decent lives.
Child marriage is so harmful to the future prospects of the victims and almost always results in their leaving education, thereby reducing their career prospects and overall life chances. Before I came to this place, my political background was in education, which I firmly believe is the most powerful tool we have to create opportunities for young people. It is an enormous disadvantage if young people are deprived of education—an education that we in this House have determined to provide up until the age of 18—because of child marriage.
It is not an understatement to say that the Bill will protect and affect the lives of literally millions of young boys and girls in this country. It will protect them from child marriage and enable them to have the best chance in life, because they will be able to continue in education until the age of 18. It will also strengthen their ability to say to their parents, “I want to go to university” or get an apprenticeship or a job. It will be much easier, because at 16 a young person is totally dependent on their parents and cannot live independently.
The legislation’s implications will be felt not just in the UK. The UK is committed to achieving the UN’s sustainable development goals, target 5.3 of which is to
“eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilations”
before 2030. This applies specifically both to religious and to non-religious child marriages. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends that there should be no legal way for anyone to marry under the age of 18. The Bill will therefore also help the UK to set an example to the rest of the world by prioritising children’s futures. The UK will finally be in a position to take a lead on child marriage around the world and on championing children’s futures. To be able to persuade other countries of the importance of banning child marriage, we must first ban it ourselves. When we have said to countries, “You need to raise the age of marriage,” they have come back to us and said, “Why should we? You don’t—you allow children to marry.”
I have set out the main provisions of my Bill and the enormous impact it will have on children in this country and around the world. Before I conclude, I wish to make an appeal to the Government. I thank the Minister, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Corby, and his colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch, who has also worked closely with us on the Bill, for their patience and shared determination that the Bill should be as comprehensive and effective as possible. I am sure, though, that it will come as no surprise to the Minister that I have three final asks of the Government.
First, I impress on the Minister the importance of the Bill’s swift commencement. Clause 7 confirms that the Bill will come into force on the day appointed by the Secretary of State. However, every day before commencement is another day on which child marriage remains possible in this country. Will the Minister please do everything in his power to arrange for commencement to take place as swiftly as possible? In particular, will the Minister give his view on whether, should the Bill make good progress through the other place and pass into law, a commencement before the summer holidays is possible? So many children are taken abroad in the summer and I fear we will be failing in our duties in this place if we do not offer them the protection this summer that we in this House believe is necessary.
Secondly, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, changing the law is only one part of the solution. Changing attitudes and societal norms is the second stage, and I have already raised that with the Department for Education. Will the Minister please confirm that he will work closely with the Department to ensure that both children and teachers are informed about the change in the law in advance of the summer holidays, so that children who are at risk can be spotted? Not only schools will need updated guidance. Will the Minister also please confirm that updated guidance for the police and for the Crown Prosecution Service will be swiftly produced to help in the investigation and prosecution of crimes under this legislation?
Finally, but no less importantly, I would like to note one final point, which is one I regret. Unfortunately, due to marriage policy being devolved, the protections in this Bill extend only to children in England and Wales, or to children with a specific connection to England and Wales. At the moment, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive do not have equivalent legislation, so children there will not be safeguarded. They also prevent the UK from completing its international obligations to end child marriage.
However, there are signs of change. The Northern Ireland Executive have launched a consultation on changing their marriage laws, and I hope that the Scottish Government will do the same. Will the Minister join me in a determined lobbying campaign to ensure that our colleagues in the devolved Administrations do the right thing and ban child marriage in their jurisdictions, too? I would be absolutely delighted if, in two years’ time, we were once again debating child marriage in this House to celebrate Scotland and Northern Ireland implementing similar pieces of legislation, so that all UK children would be covered and we would then be able to take out those provisions in this Bill.
In conclusion, I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to support my Bill. It will safeguard young people by establishing 18 as the legal age of marriage in this country, with no exceptions, giving a clear message to all that child marriage is totally unacceptable. Secondly, it criminalises anyone who causes a child to enter a marriage, offering protection from child marriage to all children growing up in England and Wales—a protection that applies both in this country and around the world.
Finally, the Bill helps the UK on its way to living up to its international obligations by banning child marriage in all its forms, and encourages the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to follow suit. The Bill has the potential to impact millions of young people, and to prevent untold numbers entering into miserable child marriages. For the sake of children growing up now and yet to come, I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak on such an important Bill. I feel proud and privileged to be speaking here this morning and supporting the Bill.
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for her tireless work in taking this Bill through Parliament. Her passion was evident in her powerful speech this morning. She has been tireless in her fight and deserves praise from all of us. I also want to register my thanks to the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who is no longer in his place, who began this journey for us before his return to the Cabinet. Indeed, I thank all fellow sponsors of this Bill, and all Members here supporting this important legislation.
Child marriage is not a thing of the past, but it should be. It is something that harms everyone—boys and girls, parents and children. It makes young girls into a commodity to be bought and sold. They are made to be women long before they are anything but children.
Marriage at 16 is a hangover from a different age, and it is right that we now step forward to close this loophole. We do so because it is the right thing to do. We do so because not to act risks consigning thousands more girls to abuse and controlling marriages, and because to act will empower thousands each year to seek education and employment for their own and indeed everyone’s good. The single biggest step that we could take today to invigorate the economy around the world is the economic empowerment of women.
Child marriage is outlawed in many countries around the world. It shames us that we lend some tacit approval to its continuation by allowing marriage at 16 here. We can lead by example, and live up to what we say abroad. We can slap down charges of hypocrisy by acting for ourselves and reaffirming our commitment to childhood.
Child marriage is often just another form of coercive control and abuse. Sadly, too often it is perpetrated by parents and siblings to force young women and girls into outdated behaviour owing to a misplaced and frankly heinous sense of so-called honour. The horrific murder of Banaz Mahmod in 2006, and the testimony of those who actually cared about her, including her sister Payzee Mahmod, show that honour and love have nothing to do with so-called honour killings and child marriage.
As a member of Ealing Council, I was proud to support the organisation Southall Black Sisters by providing their first official funding, because the work that they do matters. Sadly, that work is as necessary now as it was then. Not all child marriage is about abuse, and I know that some end in happy marriage, but that choice should be made by an adult for themselves, not forced on a child.
I must now share my personal family experience. My own mother, the late Ram Piary Sharma, married young, at only 14, and had her first child shortly after her 17th birthday. She had already brought one life into the world, and she was still a girl—a child. She was bright, intelligent, interested and driven, but poorly educated. Education was something that she insisted on delivering for her own daughters when life had denied it to her. She took the extraordinary step of starting a small school for girls in our village. While there had for many years been opportunities for boys to study, there was nowhere in my village, Mandhali, for a girl to learn. My mother secured a small room, hired a teacher from the next village to come and teach girls, and Bimla, my sister, was the first pupil. It was a great success, and soon many of our friends and neighbours were sending their girls too. My sister was the first to matriculate, and eventually went into further education, followed by my other three sisters. My mother put such value on learning and education, and it changed so many lives. Bimla trained to become a teacher and came back to Mandhali to teach another generation of girls, to change lives and make a difference, all because of the opportunities that not marrying young gave her.
My other three sisters also went into professional jobs, and none married young—they all married after the age of 22. My mother ensured that they knew the value of their learning and their responsibility to live the best life they could. That is the opportunity banning child marriage offers: the ability to shape lives for the better. Banning child marriage is not a ban on love and it is not state control; it protects the right to childhood, the right to a decent education and the right to a brighter future.
I feel honoured to participate in this debate.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for this Bill and for her tireless work and efforts to protect children and end child marriage. It is no surprise that this Bill has received cross-party and Government support, which reflects her thorough and attentive approach, alongside the strong necessity to update this area of law.
As my hon. Friend outlined, the Bill seeks to raise the minimum age of marriage and civil partnerships from 16 to 18 in England and Wales, which will bring an end to provisions allowing for 16 and 17-year-olds to marry or enter a civil partnership with parental or judicial consent. This Bill will also make it illegal for a person to arrange the marriage of another person under the age of 18 in England and Wales in those circumstances where it is not already illegal.
At the age of 16, a person cannot get a tattoo, vote, drive or buy alcohol. Most importantly, they are defined as a child under both the UN convention on the rights of the child and the Children Act 1989. A marriage or civil partnership is a lifelong commitment with significant legal and financial implications, and this Bill will allow girls and boys more time to grow, to be educated and to mature before making this serious commitment so that they can decide their own future.
At the grand old age of 34, I am still young enough to remember some of the mistakes I made at the age of 16 and 17, and they were not limited to my choice of clothes or haircut—some might argue that neither has improved. I could not fathom entering a marriage at the age of 16 or 17, nor having the maturity to make such a major decision when my experience of the world was so limited.
In discussing marriage today, this is certainly not the first time I have reflected on my life journey compared with that of my parents and grandparents. When I look at old family photos, often hiding in a dusty cupboard rather than in the cloud or on Facebook, I am always amazed at how young they look in their wedding photos. That is a reflection of how much times have changed even within my generation and my parents’ generation, let alone since these laws were originally made back in 1929.
I welcome the comprehensiveness of the Bill in closing the loopholes on child marriage and removing the significant barriers to protection and safeguarding in child marriage cases. The existing law covers cases where a parent or other third party uses violence, threats or another form of coercion to cause a child to enter into a marriage, and my understanding is that this does not cover situations where a child is caused to enter into a marriage where coercion is not used. This Bill closes that loophole by making it an offence to cause an under-18 to enter into marriage in any circumstances.
I also welcome that the Bill not only removes the parental consent exception but covers both civil and unregistered religious ceremonies, which are often the main source of child marriages, as we have heard. This helps to fulfil the safeguarding aim of the Bill, as the life-changing consequences of marriage are derived not only from the legal procedure but from the traditional or religious aspects, which are regarded as just as much as marriage by the parties, their families and their communities.
Again, I thank my hon. Friend and all the charities involved for shining a spotlight on this issue. It is also so important and significant that this Bill includes marriages that do not take place in this country as long as the child is a UK national and resident in England or Wales. Far too often, we see in the media extreme examples of outdated cultural practices of children being married to fully grown adults in foreign countries, and this Bill helps to protect children in both England and Wales. I hope—it is my sincere hope—that Scotland and Northern Ireland follow suit and we can protect all UK children.
I commend the holistic coverage of this Bill in closing those loopholes. I believe this to be a reflection of my hon. Friend’s years of focused work on the Bill and of the thorough manner with which she has steered it through the House, including by working closely with charities, Ministers and schools on its intent and provisions, which really get to the crux of the issue.
One of the main reasons I entered politics was to ensure that children are given the best chance in life, particularly through education and better opportunities. That is why I fully support the Bill. Throughout the pandemic, we have seen that the classroom really is the best place for our children—not only for learning, but for their safeguarding, mental health and wellbeing. The teachers and schools of Old Bexley and Sidcup do a remarkable job of giving local children the best life chances, and they rightly remain a source of local pride.
I am pleased that the Bill strengthens the safeguarding of children, because too often teachers spot the signs of child marriage, but unfortunately the police are unable to take any further action due to the parental consent given, the marriage not being legally binding or its not taking place in England or Wales. This is the perfect example of how the Bill gets to the heart of the issue and tackles all forms of child marriage.
I welcome the fact that evidence has shown that the number of people marrying at 16 and 17 in England and Wales has been in decline over the years. In 2016, there were 153 marriages involving 16 and 17-year-olds, which went down to 125 in 2019. Despite that decline, more needs to be done because every single child matters and deserves such protection, particularly as, unfortunately, child marriage is often a mechanism for abuse, as we have heard. Marriages under 18 often lead to a lack of education and job opportunities, physical and mental health problems, a loss of independence and an increased risk of domestic abuse.
While child marriage can impact on both girls and boys, the issue overwhelmingly affects girls, with 80% of those who married as children in 2019 being girls. I am proud that this Government are leading the way in protecting girls and women globally, including by making international commitments to end child marriage. This Bill will ensure that our country leads by example to eradicate the practice worldwide. As part of the UK’s world-leading efforts in tackling violence against women and girls—an agenda to which I am fully committed—the UK Government have announced £18 million of new UK funding to end child marriage, through partners at UNICEF and the United Nations Population Fund, and to benefit women and girls in 12 countries, including Sierra Leone, Uganda, Ethiopia, Bangladesh and Yemen.
As a nation we must continue to champion and promote girls’ education around the world, and I believe that this Bill complements that aim for the reasons outlined earlier, including, unfortunately, that one of the main consequences of child marriage is a lack of education. I therefore welcome the fact that this Bill will align our domestic and foreign policy, and help us in our goal to end child marriage and promote girls’ education around the world.
I fully support this Bill and herald it as a landmark piece of legislation that delivers significant social reform, provides a huge step forward in preventing child abuse, and allows the UK to continue to lead by example in protecting children, particularly girls, and women globally as well as here in the UK. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned with such tenacity on this important issue and worked so hard to ensure that the Bill satisfies the overarching policy objectives so well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Mr Speaker will come in just before 11 am for the urgent question. Whoever is on their feet at 11 am will be asked to resume their seat for the urgent question, and afterwards they can continue their speech, so do not be surprised by that if you are on your feet at that time.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for introducing the Bill and allowing me to be part of this debate. The Bill seeks to bring laws on marriage into the 21st century. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) pointed out, this is an issue that overwhelmingly affects women and girls, with 80% of under-age marriages in 2018 being undertaken by girls. It should be made clear that the introduction of the Bill is not about removing choice: it is about essential protections for children.
The Bill seeks not only to make marriage illegal for under-18-year-olds, but to create an offence for anyone to arrange the marriage of a person under the age of 18. The commitment of a marriage or civil partnership is not one that anyone should enter into lightly or without full knowledge and consent. Child marriage happens across countries, cultures, religions and ethnicities. It happens all around the world, but in this debate it is essential that we address the fact that many such marriages are created out of coercion.
Forced marriages are illegal in the UK, however when a person under the age of 18 is pressured to get married, research has shown that it is often by a family member. Reports show that young people in those situations do not merely lack the resources to report coercion but are often put in the impossible position of having to report on a parent or loved one. That can leave young girls of 16 faced with a choice between sending a parent to prison and being forced to marry. Other repercussions reported by survivors include being ostracised by their families and even communities. No child should be put in that position, and the Bill will take us one step closer to ensuring that no child will have to make that choice.
Child marriage has also been shown to be strongly linked to female genital mutilation, the practice of the cutting or removal of some or all of the external female genitalia. Female genital mutilation is growing every year in this country and we must be clear that it is not a cultural practice and has nothing to do with ethnicity or religion. As mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, it is a form of child abuse, and it should not be treated as anything less. Social stigma is often the reason the practice continues, and that must be tackled in our schools and local communities.
UNICEF estimates that 720 million women alive today were married when they were children. Research by Girls Not Brides has shown that every year 12 million girls are married before the age of 18. That amounts to 23 girls every minute, or one nearly every three seconds. The UK should rightly be proud of our record in supporting and championing the rights of women and girls at home and abroad. For years we have fought to end child marriage in other countries, and in fact the UK has signed two international human rights conventions demanding that child marriage be ended in signatories’ jurisdictions. However, how can we continue to advocate so passionately for the end of the practice when we still have loopholes in our own law that allow under-18-year-olds to marry? It is vital that we demonstrate that a child marriage is not accepted in the UK, and we will do so through the Bill.
Studies are clear: under-age marriage has been shown to lead to lower education and employment opportunities, an increase in mental health problems and a higher incidence of domestic violence. During the covid-19 pandemic, it was reported that cases of child marriage were on the rise. Children were not in school and therefore were less able to access support, which meant that it was far harder for schools and communities to provide that support. We have a duty of care in this country to protect our children. As a father, I cannot imagine how I would feel if a child of mine were in a situation in which they were made to marry.
If we can pass the Bill and ensure that fewer children are put into that position, we must do so. As child marriage does not have one cause, it does not have one solution. Ending the practice of child marriage will take the efforts of many communities, individuals and Governments, but the Bill will continue the process of its eradication. We have a duty, as Members of Parliament, to ensure that no more children enter into marriage, which is why I must support the Bill today.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I welcome the Bill, which is to:
“Make provision about the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership, and for connected purposes.”
When I was researching the Bill to write this speech, I came across an American news channel reporting that the minimum age for marriage in Carolina was going to be raised from 14 years old to 16 years old, that the teen’s spouse would be required to be no more than four years older, and that the teen’s written parental consent would be required to marry. I have to admit that I was rather flabbergasted. A 14-year-old is a child. A 16-year-old is a child.
Time and again, as with the trauma of the poor Russian skater, Kamila Valieva—who is a child at 15—at the recent winter Olympics that I am sure many hon. Members witnessed, we see situations where adults are not making the right or best decisions for children. Children are children until they reach adulthood at 18 years old. It is absolutely right that the Bill has been brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), and I welcome the fact that it and the amendments discussed earlier today have been supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by the Government.
Children need to be children, to be permitted to be children, and to enjoy all the joy and freedom without adult responsibilities. Child rights are fundamental freedoms and must be inherent in all children under the age of 18, irrespective of race, religion, sex or any other status. Children are not the property of their parents. They are human beings and they have rights.
The convention on the rights of the child sets out the rights that must be realised for children to develop their full potential. It offers a vision of the child as an individual and as a member of the family and community, with rights and responsibilities appropriate to his or her age and stage of development. In recognising children’s rights in that way, it firmly sets the focus on the whole child.
All children should have and deserve to have access to opportunities. Children are innocent. They are full of hope and joy, and they are trusting. Rather than be thrown or forced into an adult life, they should be allowed to mature gradually through new experiences that are age appropriate. It is a travesty that for far too many children, the reality of their childhood is all too different. Throughout history, children have been abused and exploited by adults, whether through slave labour, hunger, homelessness, limited education opportunities and so on.
Childhood must be protected and children should be allowed and encouraged to develop in their own time. Marriage or a civil partnership is an adult decision and requires thought. A party to a marriage should not take a passive approach. It is not something for someone to go along with or have done to them—it requires mature thought. Marriage is an important part of building healthy and protected relationships, families and societies.
Marriage should not cause harm to either party. Early and forced marriages often take place in communities where there is a wider social context that denies women’s and children’s rights. Currently, in England and Wales the minimum age for marriage or civil partnership without parental or other third-party consent, or judicial consent, is 18. A person who is 16 or 17 may marry or form a civil partnership only with consent—with some very rare exceptions, in which a 16 or 17-year-old is a widow or widower, or a surviving civil partner. A marriage or civil partnership is void if either of the parties is under the age of 16.
The Bill would raise to 18 the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership in England and Wales. That might affect marriages and civil partnerships that take place outside England and Wales. A change in the common law will also mean that any marriages involving under-18s that take place overseas, or in Scotland or Northern Ireland, will not be legally recognised in England and Wales if one of the parties is domiciled in England or Wales. That change to recognition will also apply to civil partnerships. I acknowledge the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire about issues to do with Scotland and Northern Ireland; I, too, encourage Scotland and Northern Ireland to take the Bill on board.
The Bill will also make it illegal for a person to arrange the marriage of a person under the age of 18 in England and Wales in circumstances where that is not already illegal. In 2018, the most recent year for which data is available, 147 16 to 17-year-olds entered into a legally binding marriage with a person of the opposite sex, representing a very small proportion—0.06%—of all marriages that took place in England and Wales in 2018. Marriages of same-sex couples or civil partnerships are not reported with a detailed age breakdown. The issue is about not the small number, but each of those individuals who have had something done to or for them over which they have had no control.
The majority of 16 to 17-year-olds who marry are female. In 2018, 119 of the 16 to 17-year-olds getting married were female, while 28 were male. Over the past five years, an average of 79% of all 16 to 17-year-olds getting married have been female. UNICEF considers that child marriage is a violation of human rights, regardless of sex, but has emphasised that child marriage often compromises a girl’s development by resulting in early pregnancy and social isolation, interrupting her schooling, limiting her opportunities for career and vocational advancement, and placing her at increased risk of domestic violence. Although the impact on child grooms has not been extensively studied, marriage may similarly place boys in an adult role for which they are unprepared and may place economic pressures on them and curtail their opportunities for further education or career advancement.
Gender equality and ending the exploitation of women and girls are vital. One of the United Nations sustainable development goals agreed by world leaders is to eliminate all harmful practices such as child early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends that there should be no legal way for anyone to marry before they turn 18, even if there is parental consent.
The Bill would also expand the existing criminal law on forced marriage to make it illegal for a person to arrange the marriage of a person under 18 in England and Wales. In 2020, the forced marriage unit gave advice or support in 759 cases related to a possible forced marriage and/or possible female genital mutilation. A significant majority related to forced marriage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire has already pointed out. The forced marriage unit notes that the overall case number represents a 44% decrease on the average number of cases received annually between 2011 and 2019, which was 1,359. The decrease is thought to be attributable to the pandemic, owing to restrictions on weddings and overseas travel.
Proceedings interrupted (Standing Order No. 11(4)).
Ukraine
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the military situation in Ukraine.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Yesterday morning saw the launching of the largest combined arms offensive operations seen in the European theatre since 1945. From land, sea and air, a massive Russian offensive commenced from forward positions in Belarus, all around Ukraine’s northern and eastern borders, from the Crimea and from ships in the Black sea. As leaders around the free world have said, this is an outrage against international law that violates Ukrainian sovereignty and brings a profound change to the security landscape of the Euro-Atlantic.
The Ukrainian armed forces have stood their ground heroically, forcing fierce fighting around several Ukrainian cities. The Antonov-2 airfield north of Kyiv was taken by Russian airborne forces as part of the initial assault yesterday morning but was reportedly retaken by the Ukrainian forces overnight.
As the world has now seen, the intelligence available to the British and American Governments over recent weeks has proven to be entirely accurate. That allows us to assess that the Russians have failed to achieve any of their planned objectives for the first day of combat operations. The Ukrainian armed forces claim to have shot down six fixed-wing aircraft and seven helicopters. They report that 137 Ukrainian service personnel have been killed in action as well as 57 civilians; hundreds more have been injured. The Ukrainian Government report that 450 Russian service personnel have been killed in action. As a former soldier with the vivid experience of death on the battlefield seared forever in my mind, I take no satisfaction in reporting those numbers to the House, and nor do I propose that we keep a score every day. These are the lives of innocent civilians and the lives of the bravest and best Russians and Ukrainians.
As we gorge on the live footage of a peer-on-peer war broadcast from a European capital just two-and-a-half hours’ flying time from London, we should remember that behind those pictures is incredible fear and misery. That is why I pay tribute to those in Moscow, St Petersburg and other Russian cities who protested last night against this pointless loss of Russian life. President Putin and the kleptocrats who surround him have miscalculated badly. Young Russian men and women are needlessly losing their lives. The responsibility sits entirely with the Kremlin.
Yesterday, British Royal Air Force Typhoon jets took part in NATO air policing from their base in RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, from which they patrol over the Black sea and south-eastern Europe. HMS Trent is already part of a NATO standing maritime group and further Royal Navy ships are being deployed to other NATO standing groups in both the Baltic and the eastern Mediterranean. In addition to the Royal Tank Regiment battlegroup that has been in place in Estonia for the last six months, the Royal Welsh battlegroup will be arriving in Estonia earlier than planned to double up our force levels. Those doubled-up force levels will remain indefinitely and will be augmented by the headquarters of 12 Mechanised Brigade, meaning that the United Kingdom will have an armoured brigade in Estonia, reassuring one of our closest NATO allies.
Mr Speaker, as you have heard from the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and others in recent days, we will explore all that we can do to support the Ukrainians in the next few days. All hon. Members in this House must be clear that British and NATO troops should not—must not—play an active role in Ukraine. We must all be clear what the risks of miscalculation could be and how existential the situation could quickly become if people do miscalculate and things escalate unnecessarily.
The Government do not feel that they can share with the House the detail of the support that the UK will provide to the Ukrainians at this sensitive point in operations. We apologise for that. We will do our best to give the House as much as we can, but hon. Members will appreciate that the detail is operationally sensitive. I hope that is acceptable to you, Mr Speaker.
Finally, Mr Speaker, you and Front-Bench spokespeople from across the House have had briefings from Defence Intelligence. We will make sure that continues to happen, so that, on Privy Council terms, briefings can be received by those who need to have them. Colleagues were also given a briefing last night by Defence Intelligence, which I know colleagues from across the House have found useful. We intend to keep up those briefings for as long as we feel there are kinetic combat operations that warrant a daily update. Beyond that, a number of cross-party briefings have been given by the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary, the next of which will take place this afternoon, when I will be joining the Foreign Secretary and a representative of the intelligence community to brief colleagues further.
Mr Speaker
I have allowed this to run over, as it is such an important matter and, as is right, I wanted to hear the Minister in full; of course, the same will be extended to the Opposition and Scottish National party spokespeople.
Mr Bone
I start by thanking the Minister for the Armed Forces for his detailed update. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his leadership during this appalling crisis. Yesterday, President Putin, the Russian dictator, ordered a full-scale invasion of an independent, democratic state in the heart of Europe. At this very time, the people of Ukraine are fighting for hope for their homeland against a monstrous aggressor. We are seeing history repeat itself, as a powerful country headed by a madman is extending its territorial boundaries, first by annexing regions of sovereign countries and then by invading those countries. That is, of course, what happened in the 1930s and led to world war.
I have four questions for the Minister, which are in support of our Ukrainian friends and of our western democratic values. First, Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK has asked for us and our allies to institute a no-fly zone over Ukraine. As the ambassador said,
“people are dying as we speak”.
This action would be a significant and real help for the people of Ukraine. Yesterday, when I asked the Prime Minister about this request, he indicated that it was not ruled out. Will the Minister update the House on that request for help?
Secondly, will the Minister say, as far as he is able, what additional military hardware we are providing as a practical support to the people of Ukraine? Thirdly, what steps are being taken by NATO to reinforce its eastern flank? Fourthly, given that we are now in a situation worse than the cold war, will we be increasing our spending on defence to reflect that reality? Mr Speaker, may the prayers and thoughts of this House be with the people of Ukraine.
James Heappey
First, I join my hon. Friend in sending prayers to the people of Ukraine. Last night, I was watching some of the footage that was emerging, particularly from Kharkiv, of the artillery barrage. It just looked like hell on earth and it was pretty hard not to say a prayer before going to sleep. Thank God for the safety in which we were all sleeping last night compared with those in that city.
As Members will appreciate, a no-fly zone is somewhat difficult to implement in a hostile airspace against a peer adversary. We need to have our eyes wide open to the reality that in such an event NATO jets would, not just possibly but most certainly probably, come into a combat situation with Russian jets, and the risk of miscalculation, escalation and the triggering of article 5 could not be understated in those circumstances. As Members will appreciate, in the air domain the risk of miscalculation is greater, because things are happening at Mach 2 and there is no time for political calibration; it is in the hands of pilots who are flying at well over the speed of sound. No-fly zones come with all sorts of problems. I understand exactly why the Ukrainian ambassador is asking for this, but we need to be clear that it could well trigger an article 5 moment and we need to be clear-eyed about that reality in considering it.
I said in my answer to the original question that I do not propose to provide a commentary on the additional hardware that we will supply to the Ukrainian armed forces, nor the routes by which we would do so, if indeed we will. The Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister are clear about this in terms of the requirement. We know that other European countries are keen to do likewise, but obviously this has to be provided at a pace and through routes that the Ukrainian armed forces are able to absorb, in order to minimise the risk of the cache simply being destroyed or overwhelmed by advancing Russian forces.
NATO is taking huge measures to reinforce its eastern flank. I have outlined in my initial response what the UK has done. That effort has been more than matched by our best friends in the world in the United States, and other NATO countries are also rallying to the flag. For the past 10 years or so, NATO has had a network of enhanced forward presence battlegroups—the UK’s is in Estonia. Those are all being reinforced, and new forward presence battlegroups are being put in place. If the aim of what is going on right now is not just territorial gain in Ukraine, but to push NATO away from Russia, President Putin is achieving precisely the opposite, because NATO is drawing the line around NATO countries ever thicker and ever stronger.
It will not surprise my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough one bit to know that in the MOD we are quickly considering whether the threat has changed and whether more money is required—no Defence Minister would ever say that it is not, but that is a conversation that needs to happen within Government. I think my hon. Friend would agree that this is not a retail moment of politics, where an issue arises and a solution is offered within the news cycle, and then everybody moves on to the next thing. This is something that will define our role in the world for the next 20 years, and we have got time to make the right decisions.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The whole House appreciates your willingness to allow this urgent question, Mr Speaker, and the manner in which the Minister is briefing the House and the way in which his colleagues are prepared to keep the House informed during this very rapidly developing crisis.
Yesterday, President Putin launched a war in Europe. He is invading and killing people in a sovereign country that Russia itself guaranteed to respect. His attack on Ukraine is an attack on democracy and a grave violation of international law and the United Nations charter. Putin will not stop at Ukraine; he wants to divide and weaken the west, and to re-establish Russian control over neighbouring countries. These are the actions of an imperialist and a dictator, and Britain has a long tradition of standing up to such tyrants. We believe in freedom, democracy, the rule of law and the right of a country to decide its own future, and those are the very values that Ukrainians are fighting for now in their country. We must support their brave resistance in any way we can, and our thoughts are with the comrades and families of those on both sides who have been killed in these first hours of fighting.
On Wednesday, the Prime Minister told the House that the UK would shortly be providing a further package of military support to Ukraine. We understand the Minister’s comments about detail, but has that further military assistance been provided? The Minister knows that he has Labour’s full support for doing so, and he also knows that what was announced and delivered before—the UK’s short-range, hand-held anti-tank missiles—are working well. He knows that the Ukrainians need more of those missiles urgently in order to defend Kyiv and their other cities, so can he confirm that he is willing to go that bit further? The Minister has just said that Russia has failed to take any of its day one objectives. Which are the major objectives that it has failed to meet, and what is the Government’s assessment of why it has failed?
Finally, NATO leaders meet today. Does Britain support NATO’s response force now being activated in full? What further contribution will the UK make to reinforcing NATO allies on the eastern flank, and when will the 1,000 UK troops on stand-by to help with humanitarian assistance be deployed? The Minister also mentioned the doubling up of British forces in Estonia. When will those be deployed and in place?
Since the end of the cold war, we have taken peace and security in Europe for granted. We can no longer do so, and I fear that we will be dealing with the consequences of this Russian invasion for years to come.
James Heappey
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and the way that he and his Front-Bench Labour colleagues have engaged with the Government throughout all of this. It just goes to show that at times of national emergency this House is at its very best.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that NLAW—the next generation light anti-tank weapon—has already proven to be invaluable. They are unsubstantiated reports, but none the less we are aware of a number of circumstances in which they have been used to defeat Russian armour. We are therefore very aware of their utility, both in open battle, during the initial phase of the conflict, but also in the urban domain, in any resistance or insurgency that might follow. It will not surprise the right hon. Gentleman to know that NLAW, among other systems that have similar dual utility in both open battle and whatever may come next, is high on our list of things that we are looking to supply.
I can sense the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration, and I know that the House would like to hear the full detail. Suffice to say that the Secretary of State has instructed military officers in Defence to look across the full UK inventory for everything that we have right now that might be usable in the circumstances and to look at whether that could be sent forward and absorbed by the Ukrainians. However, one has to be clear that most systems require some degree of training, so it is not just the logistics of moving them to the country, nor indeed the challenges of the export of systems, in that we would need all the countries that have intellectual property or that operate the system to give their permission for it to be donated. It is also the ability to train up Ukrainian forces to use it thereafter. However, we are leaving no stone unturned, and the right hon. Gentleman should be assured that we want to see as much British kit in the hands of the Ukrainians as we can manage.
The right hon. Gentleman asked which objectives were not taken. He will forgive me if, while clearly we indulge in a bit of information manoeuvre from the Dispatch Box to remind the Russian public that President Putin may well have bitten off more than he can chew, we are not going to compromise the intelligence that we have got altogether. Suffice to say, we are pretty certain that in the Kremlin last night there will have been some pretty urgent reflections on the speed of the advance compared with what they anticipated. The Russian people should be calling President Putin and the kleptocracy that surrounds him out on that, because young Russian men and women are being sacrificed in the name of President Putin’s hubris.
As for the NATO response force, further contributions are under consideration. The UK is already the second largest contributor in terms of the surge forces that have come forward, second only to the United States, but we are clear that we may need to provide more in land, sea and air, and we will do so if other NATO allies are unable to respond at the pace that we could. The 1,000 troops that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned who are on standby for humanitarian support in the countries immediately adjoining Ukraine will be deployed as and when those countries ask for them, but thus far no request has come. They remain at high readiness, forward present at a camp very close to RAF Brize Norton, so that they can be deployed at hours’ notice, but at the moment Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Poland have not yet asked for that support.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about when the enhanced forward presence battlegroups will have been doubled up and when the brigade headquarters will be in place. I encourage all colleagues to follow the excellent Twitter feed of the 3rd (United Kingdom) Division, the Iron Division as they call themselves. There were some fantastic pictures yesterday of Challenger 2 tanks being loaded on to low loader trucks to be driven north through Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, and into Estonia. That is an extraordinary effort for a battlegroup that was not supposed to be deploying for three more months and was in the middle of a training routine in Germany. It has turned that around very quickly. It is a testament not only to the Royal Welsh battlegroup but to the brigade headquarters, 3rd Division and the Field Army that that work has been completed so quickly; we expect them to be complete in Tapa by 1 March.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
What reassurance can my hon. Friend give to the Ukrainian community in Derby and Derbyshire, who will have family members over there, that we are doing all we can to support the everyday, ordinary Ukrainian families who are having to put up with this incursion by Putin? I would like my hon. Friend to give an assurance that we are doing whatever we can.
James Heappey
Last night the Secretary of State and I had to leave during the Prime Minister’s statement to return to the MOD for another briefing. To the surprise of the Prime Minister’s protection officers, we decided to walk back through the protest that was happening on Whitehall. I was struck not by the anger and the screaming and shouting that normally accompany protests in Westminster, but by the incredible sombreness and resolve, but also the fearfulness, shown by so many in that protest. They, as my hon. Friend said, will have family and friends back home in Ukraine. These were not people protesting over a political cause; these were people protesting for help with the safety of their loved ones.
The United Kingdom is not regarded by Ukraine as one of its best friends in the world by accident. For the last 10 years we have been training the Ukrainian armed forces through Operation Orbital. We were one of the first movers in providing lethal aid, and we sent troops to Ukraine only two or three weeks ago, when the build-up of Russian troops was well under way, to deliver the training that was required to allow those highly successful anti-tank weapons to be employed in battle, as they have now been. We will continue to do all that we possibly can, and I know that the excellent Minister for Europe and North America, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), is driving hard to ensure that all the necessary consular support is in place so that people who have connections with Ukrainians who are still in Ukraine can be supported through the excellent work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister, and indeed to his colleague in the Foreign Office, for the work that they are doing and the updates that they have been ensuring Opposition Members have. Like the Minister and other Members, I wish only to heap praise on the Ukrainian armed forces, who ensured that Russia did not get the opening gambit that it thought it would. But, as the Minister says, we are seeing Russian men being sent to die for one man’s hubris—and my goodness, what courage was shown on the streets of Russia last night by people protesting against the aggression from the Kremlin, and we commend them for it.
The Minister rightly spoke of supporting Ukraine with military equipment, and we back the Government in that. It is obviously, in some cases, easier said than done—it requires training, logistics and all the rest—but the Ukraine Government need it. I am not going to ask the Minister for an assurance that he has already given, but I want to press him in saying that we on these Benches want to see Ukraine get all the equipment it needs. I know that the Minister does not want to go into specific areas of equipment, but satellite phones are badly needed. That issue has arisen quite often during the various conversations that I have had with Government and parliamentary officials in Ukraine, and even came up at the protest outside Downing Street last night.
May I ask whether consideration has been given by the Government, and by G7 allies, to cyber-support, particularly cyber-offensive support? I can see the expression on the Minister’s face, but would that constitute an article 5 scenario or not? What do the Government understand it to be? May I also ask the Government to ensure that they provide the appropriate level of humanitarian and medical equipment support that the Ukraine Government need?
Finally—I hope the Minister will forgive me, but I have not heard him mention this yet; it is not necessarily an MOD issue—may I ask for an update on where we are with SWIFT? Members had hoped that progress would have been made with that by now. I know that the Foreign Office has been pressing hard on it, but an update would be useful.
James Heappey
Everything that the hon. Gentleman said about lethal aid has been well heard. We are working on it at our best pace, and we will do as much as we physically can at this stage, as will the United States and other allies. We are just looking at how it would be practically done.
The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to a range of items, most obviously satellite phones, that provide resilience for the functioning of the Ukrainian Government—military and perhaps, in time, for resistance purposes—when they are operating in an electronically denied environment, and with all the probability of cyber-attacks and everything else that will make their functioning ever harder. We are very aware of that requirement, and of the requirement for medical supplies and other things that we are working on. The hon. Gentleman saw me wince; I am afraid that the Government’s legal position on cyber-operations is very much a matter for the Attorney General and the Prime Minister, and is not something on which I will comment at the Dispatch Box.
The hon. Gentleman asked about removing Russia from the SWIFT system. He will perhaps have heard my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary on the news this morning saying that Her Majesty’s Government are keen that that sanction is imposed. It is not in our gift to do that unilaterally, or even multilaterally among the countries that have thus far agreed to do it. Our colleagues in the Foreign Office are hard at work on that, and I hope we can win the argument. It feels like a sanction that Russia would properly sit up and take notice of.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Much is rightly made of Russia’s role in this, but Belarus is playing a part as a staging post. What sanctions and steps are we taking to ensure that Belarus feels the pain for what it is doing? The Minister talks about “miscalculations”. What assessment has he made about accidental fire potentially going into other countries? It is a big concern to my constituents that we inadvertently find ourselves on a war footing without meaning to be.
James Heappey
The Belarussian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office today to have the views of Her Majesty’s Government shared with them, and Belarus has also been included in the sanctions regime. We are acutely aware of the grave risk of miscalculation. As I said in response to the initial question about a no-fly zone, when things are happening at Mach 2, and where border incursions can last for just seconds, often it is not heads of Government who get to make the decision about whether a trigger on an anti-aircraft missile system is pulled. We are working hard within NATO to ensure that all those risks are clearly understood, and that the risk of miscalculation is minimised. But we must be clear: there is absolutely no way in a situation as kinetic and dynamic as this, that that risk can be removed altogether, and I am afraid that I am certain that there will be moments of miscalculation. Yesterday, a Turkish ship was apparently hit by one side or the other as it was leaving Odesa, and cool heads will be required if any such event were to happen.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his update, and I place on record the thoughts and prayers of everyone in my constituency for the people of Ukraine. Like Members across the House, I have already been contacted by worried constituents who have friends and family in Ukraine who are desperate to access safe routes out of the country. I reiterate the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey): will the 1,000 UK troops that the Minister has placed on standby to help with the humanitarian crisis now urgently be deployed?
James Heappey
I do not want to do the hon. Lady a disservice, but I understood her question to be whether the 1,000 troops will go into Ukraine, as they went into Kabul in the summer, to facilitate the egress of Ukrainians. I am afraid she will be disappointed, as that is simply not something that could be realistically done. This is a highly kinetic combat situation, and the probability of NATO troops being caught up in combat with Russian armed forces is far too high and would lead to huge escalation. The 1,000 troops who are on standby are there to support Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Poland with the expected humanitarian challenges they will face as people make their way out of Ukraine. They are at very high readiness, and we will get them forward as quickly as we can. As we warned when we changed the travel advice—my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and I were on TV pulling no punches about the gravity of the situation, and we were telling people to leave urgently, precisely because there would be no opportunity to do as we did in Kabul in the summer.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I thank the Minister and the whole Government for the leadership they are showing at an international level. In winter 2015 I went to Ukraine with the former Defence Secretary, as a special adviser, to see Operation Orbital as it was being deployed. As part of that, we laid wreaths for the fallen Ukrainian soldiers. As a special adviser I was given a single carnation to put down, but I felt slightly embarrassed in doing so as I did not feel that we were doing as much as we possibly could to help the Ukrainians. That is because although we were giving lots of support and lots of sanctions, we were also hamstrung by the fact that we could not get agreement by as many of our European allies as we wanted, for everything that we wanted to bring to bear.
Reports in The New York Times yesterday suggested that Germany, Austria and Italy were refusing to co-operate on SWIFT payments, that Belgium was trying to get an opt-out for its diamond markets, and that Italy was trying to get an opt-out from European Union sanctions on luxury handbags. Will the Minister ensure that all our diplomatic efforts are brought to bear on our European allies to ensure that they are not dragging their feet? We in this House, and our American allies, are really pushing forward to try to do everything possible to help the people of Ukraine.
James Heappey
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. First of all, all diplomatic effort is being focused on this issue. It is definitely Her Majesty’s Government’s top foreign policy priority. I would argue that it is probably the top priority across Government full stop at the moment, in order to make sure that the response is completely cross-Whitehall and robust enough to have an impact on President Putin. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate, however, that this is not a moment to think that a response must be provided within 24 hours, by the weekend or even by the end of next month.
This is about making sure that the western alliance does not fracture, that we bring the whole of the free world with us in its condemnation of Russia, and that Russia, as a consequence, is completely isolated. That is the way the cost is imposed on Putin over time, sufficient to ensure not only that he fails in his ambitions to take and hold Ukraine, but that he fails in his ability to remain as Russian President and to anoint a successor of his choosing when the time comes. It is absolutely essential that the diplomatic effort, even if it requires a bit of patience, brings with us the whole of the western alliance, because if Putin wants one thing more than the territorial gains in Ukraine, it is to see NATO fracture and article 5 no longer mean anything.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The US ambassador addressed the UN a few days ago to say that up to 5 million refugees may be coming out of Ukraine and into the rest of Europe. We are already witnessing on our television screens heartbreaking images of Ukrainians fleeing their homes desperately trying to escape conflict. Given that the refugee exodus will be on a scale we have not seen since 2015, how will the Ministry of Defence, alongside its European partners, contribute to the creation of humanitarian corridors to ensure that refugees can be safely evacuated from the conflict zone? Can we now finally end the ridiculous Nationality and Borders Bill that is in the House of Lords, which will actually limit our opportunity quite rightly to welcome refugees to these shores?
James Heappey
To the point on the Nationality and Borders Bill first, I am not sure I share the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I think I answered the question earlier about what active role we can play within Ukraine’s borders to facilitate the egress of Ukrainian people. I am afraid that there is remarkably little that the international community can do there without the profound risk of it ending up as a NATO versus Russia fight, with all the escalation that that would cause.
The Minister for Europe and North America, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) spoke yesterday to all the neighbouring countries’ Governments to make sure that they are aware of the support that the United Kingdom is able and ready to deliver, militarily in terms of troops on the ground, to help process, marshal, facilitate and secure refugees as they arrive in those countries. However, the MOD is just carrying baggage and facilitating; it is our great development and aid experts in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office who will do the really impressive stuff when and if those requests come from neighbouring Governments. We will make sure that we are supporting the FCDO in all its endeavours.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The tyrant Putin is getting what he said he feared: a thicker and thicker line of defence around the NATO alliance. I am very pleased that we are doubling our commitment to Estonia, principally through the Royal Welsh battlegroup. I am proud that many of those units are based in my constituency, including the Royal Artillery, the Royal Engineers and the Royal Tank regiment. Will my hon. Friend join me in honouring those troops and their families for the sacrifice they are making?
James Heappey
My hon. Friend, his constituents and the service people who live in his constituency should be enormously proud of what the members of 12th Brigade, headquartered in Bulford and with many living in Tidworth, are doing in Estonia today. I paid tribute earlier to the speed at which the Royal Welsh has gone from a training cycle in Germany to driving north into Estonia. I include, too, the many families of the Royal Tank Regiment who will have been expecting their loved ones home in the next couple weeks and now do not know when they will be coming home because the extension of the tour is indefinite. That, too, is worthy of praise. They are fortunate to have such a fantastic advocate in the House of Commons.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Reports indicate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure. Can the Minister expand on how that is being tracked so that those who perpetrate these crimes and those who compel them to do so will be held to account?
James Heappey
Absolutely. Yesterday, many Members of the House will have seen reported in the news the summoning not only of the Russian ambassador to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where the top lines of Her Majesty’s Government were delivered, but of the defence attaché to the Ministry of Defence. In the MOD, the discussion was very much around how we are recording the violations of international humanitarian law and the Geneva convention that we have reported, our expectations that Russia will operate under those conventions, and our intent to make sure that it is held to account wherever it does not.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers will today decide to expel Russia from the Council of Europe?
James Heappey
That is somewhat out of my lane, but I have just been told that there are discussions ongoing.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
We know that the attacks on the area surrounding Kyiv originated in Belarus, making Lukashenko complicit in this aggression. I am pleased that Belarus will not go unpunished, and I hope that that is a signal to anyone else thinking of supporting Putin’s actions. Given that we have already placed sanctions on Belarus for its appalling human rights record, can the Minister update the House on what these new sanctions are designed to do and how they will be targeted on Belarus?
James Heappey
Mr Deputy Speaker, if you will allow, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is written to.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for securing this urgent question. Though we sit safely some 2,000 miles away, the power of media and social media means that we are able to witness the atrocities that Putin’s regime is enacting on Ukraine. As we witness them, we witness them in real time, and seeing the advancement take place in such a quick timescale is concerning for us all. Yesterday, in a conversation with some Ukrainian MPs, they were talking about how the next few days in particular will be absolutely critical. I greatly welcome the really strong sanctions that have been put in place so far that the Prime Minister announced yesterday, but one way that we could strike at the economic heart of the Putin regime is by cutting out Russia from the international SWIFT banking system. Although I welcome the Minister’s comments so far, can he just confirm once again that this is action that the UK Government support, and will he outline what steps are being taken to encourage our international partners to join us in calling for it?
James Heappey
There are many discussions ongoing over SWIFT. I have said in earlier answers that the view of the Government is clear, but, obviously, it is not something that we can do unilaterally, or even multilaterally with those who agree thus far. It needs to be something that everyone agrees with before that action is taken.
May I pick up on a point that my hon. Friend made about the importance of information manoeuvre? All of us in this House and all the journalists who report on our work have a role in that. Colleagues will I hope reflect on the fact that it is never helpful to share and promote anything that appears to show Ukrainian force movements. Similarly, there is huge power in our hands as western legislators to communicate to the Russian public our values and our belief that brave men and women from Russia are being sacrificed in the name of Putin’s hubris.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
My thoughts and prayers of those of the constituents of Rutherglen and Hamilton West are with all those in Ukraine today. What assessment has the Government made of the risk level posed by Russia to UK interests should Putin attempt to retaliate against sanctions, and what form would those risks take?
James Heappey
The hon. Lady will not be surprised to know that everybody in the Government is acutely aware of the risk of escalation through miscalculation. The risks of retaliation to sanction measures are probably likely to be financial. We have seen today that there is a tit for tat going on—as we have banned Aeroflot so, too, has Russia sought to ban British Airways and Virgin. An epoch change in Euro-Atlantic security has happened over the past 48 hours. Our entire perception of the threat under which we now live is completely different to the one that we were living under just six weeks ago. We should give ourselves some time as a House, as a Government and as a United Kingdom to consider what that means.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
As I said goodbye to my children this morning and wished them a good day at school, my thoughts turned to the mums in Ukraine who now fear for the futures of their children. I was taken by the photos in the Daily Mail today of primary schoolchildren in bomb shelters. President Putin has failed to listen to the major international diplomatic efforts and to NATO, the UN and the Ukrainian people; does my hon. Friend think he might listen to the Russian mothers of the soldiers who are now undertaking his aggression?
James Heappey
I hope so, but I fear he is not that sort of man, which is why we need to do everything we can to empower those people with all the information we can get to them about President Putin’s complete disregard for the lives of their boys and girls. I was enormously struck by the information we were able to release to the media yesterday about the Russian use of mobile crematoria following its frontlines. I sent a number of friends and colleagues back from Iraq and Afghanistan in flag-draped coffins to be buried with full military honours. Nothing could give their families back the lives of their loved ones, but at least the nation marked that sacrifice. Putin just sends round a mobile crematorium and burns them.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Like him, when I walked up Whitehall last night, although I of course heard concerns from the demonstrators there, I also saw courage and resilience. It was really quite powerful.
Cyber-attacks, falsehoods and disinformation are President Putin’s tools of trade; how can we support Ukrainians to deal with Putin’s propaganda?
James Heappey
We are doing everything we can. We need to dust off an awful lot from the playbook of the ’70s and ’80s. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), has rightly highlighted the important work that the BBC did to promote the voice of freedom during the cold war. We need to give the Ukrainian public hope and to remind them of what they are fighting for—that freedom matters. We take it too much for granted in the west but this is a timely reminder that it is not free. The more we can embolden the Ukrainian public to stand their ground and fight, the better. The more we can help Russians to understand that there is a better way of living than under President Putin, the better.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I first visited Ukraine when it was part of the authoritarian communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union and I completely understand why the Ukrainians want to breathe free. I revisited and met civil society groups that were trying to rebuild democracy in Ukraine after it left the Soviet Union. I met the then President Viktor Yushchenko shortly after he was poisoned by Putin for the crime of wanting what we in western Europe take for granted. I am glad Putin’s military progress is going more slowly than he wished, but it is clearly going to be a long and bloody battle. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that we should be in this for the long haul and that our support for the Ukrainian people and their quest for democracy should not stop when the fighting stops?
James Heappey
Absolutely. This is no time for gotcha-style comments such as, “You said you’d do this on Monday and you’ve not done it by Wednesday”; this is about making the right decisions to restore Ukrainian sovereignty as quickly as possible while ensuring that President Putin fails and the kleptocracy around him fails. This is behaviour that cannot be tolerated. As the Prime Minister has rightly said, this is behaviour that will be watched with great interest by other authoritarian regimes around the world. It is right that the west pauses and makes good, sound, strategic decisions as the western alliance and does the right thing to draw a line in the sand, saying we still believe in a rules-based international system and liberal, free democracies.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his update this morning. I wish to express the solidarity of the people of Hull with the people of Ukraine at this appalling time, and the utter condemnation of the dictator Putin and his imperialist actions. I want to press the Minister a little more on war crimes. I am pleased to hear that they are being recorded and monitored. In particular, can he say something about the use of sexual violence in warfare and how the Government will record that? What exactly will happen next, so that I understand what the process will be?
James Heappey
I thank the hon. Lady for her important question. It is no consolation to the people of Ukraine, but the British armed forces have given a huge amount of thought to how we must operate in future conflicts, being mindful of women, peace and security, and the challenges that far too many women and children face in conflict broadly pursued between men. I am not sure that much regard is being given to that by the Russians, but I will come back to her if I receive any information to the contrary.
We told the Russian defence attaché yesterday about the work that has been done so far. We will continue to speak to him to make clear our expectations that all parts of humanitarian law and the Geneva convention should be adhered to. We will monitor that as best we can. As the hon. Lady will see from all of the open-source intelligence that is available on social media, this is a very different type of war from even Gulf war one and two. This is a social media age war, and the outrages are often there. Unfortunately, we cannot always believe what we see, so we are giving much thought to how we properly report and verify, and then make sure that people are held to account in due course.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I want to voice condemnation of Mr Putin on behalf of the residents of Hastings and Rye, and their support of and prayers for the Ukrainians. Ukraine President Zelensky gave a powerful and stirring speech yesterday that called on the Russian people to stand up to President Putin over his illegal invasion, and we have already seen extensive protests across Russia. Can my hon. Friend join President Zelensky in calling on Russian citizens, who have never experienced a real democracy, to stand up against the Kremlin regime and its unprovoked aggression?
James Heappey
I absolutely can. As the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and party leaders across the House have all been clear, our fight is not with the Russian people. In fact, they have our most profound sympathies for the way that they are being disregarded at the moment. I hope that they will see that there is a better way to live in their country, and I hope that they will stand up to President Putin and the kleptocracy that surrounds him. I hope that what the international community does diplomatically, economically, militarily and culturally—so much of the cold war was a competition of values promoted through rival cultures—means that President Putin quickly comes to see that he has miscalculated badly and that, soon enough, his days will be numbered.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
Russia and the Kremlin’s efforts in Ukraine are supported not just by a state apparatus, but by a shadowy network of black, grey and opaque interests in terms of finance and supply of arms, not just in Ukraine but elsewhere. Could I commend to the Minister and the wider Treasury Bench an excellent article today on conservativehome.com—not my usual reading—by Dr Kate Ferguson from Protection Approaches? The article has a lot of good, concrete suggestions, because it is important to target not just state support for the actions of the Kremlin in Ukraine, but the wider networks that support the Kremlin’s malfeasance elsewhere—I am thinking particularly of Republika Srpska—because tackling those networks of finance and arms support would be a really useful thing for us to do.
James Heappey
I will repay the bipartisan bonhomie by saying that I found an article on the geopolitical situation in Ukraine in the New Statesman particularly useful the other day—[Interruption.] Not my usual reading. Nor is Con Home, to be fair. The hon. Gentleman is right. This is not just about a military exchange, nor is it about a headline set of sanctions. This is about bringing to bear a whole of Government response that unpicks criminal networks and shell companies across a number of countries, some within multilateral forums in which we can have leverage and others that sit entirely outwith. This will be a complicated business, but unpick it we must because that is how we bring Russia to a place of complete isolation and therefore failure.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I, too, offer my prayers and support for the people of Ukraine on behalf of my Ynys Môn constituents. This outrage against international law is happening just two and a half flying hours from here. I welcome the economic sanctions that have already been put in place. The Minister has mentioned SWIFT, which shows how important that is, but can he confirm to the House that the Prime Minister has stressed to our international partners the importance of cutting Russia off from SWIFT?
James Heappey
The Prime Minister absolutely has, but we have to be clear—I make no apology for showing this understanding, because I think it is important for the House that we do—that the burden of sanctions will fall unequally. The sanctions will be completely meaningless if the regime collapses within six months because people start to fracture away. President Putin wants not just territorial gain, but the fracture of the western alliance and for NATO and article 5 to become meaningless. It is really important that we do the diplomacy urgently, that we succeed and that we bring the international community with us. I do not think it is particularly helpful if people, from the Dispatch Box or anywhere else, give too much opprobrium to countries that clearly have a lot to consider before they sign up to this, as much as I think that they should.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Following on from the question from the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), Sky News is reporting that over 1,000 brave souls—Russian souls—were arrested last night across 54 cities while protesting against the shedding of both young Russian and Ukrainian blood, as the Minister has pointed out. Will the Minister join me in sending solidarity to that protest movement, and will he reiterate to the House that our quarrel is not with the Russian people, but with Putin, and that he has committed a very grave error?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and may those protests grow, may they flourish and may their voice be impossible to ignore.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I very much welcome the Minister’s remarks and those of the shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). The Minister has rightly made much of the need to maintain the unity of the western alliance, but can I ask him what efforts have been made to reach out beyond that alliance, in particular to China, to try to discourage China from offering any active or indeed implicit support for what Putin has done?
James Heappey
First, the work of Her Majesty’s Government and NATO Governments to reach out beyond the Euro-Atlantic to the rest of the world has been going on at pace, and a number of countries have already joined European and north Atlantic countries in imposing sanctions of their own. The hon. Member is absolutely right that this is a moment of real decision for China. If China wants to be a world leader, it needs to show that it stands for a rules-based international system. Her Majesty’s Government will encourage it to take a stand to do so, and I think there is an opportunity this evening in New York for China to show that that is where it stands. If it does not, it will have set out its stall all too clearly, but let us hope that it can be persuaded otherwise.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Yesterday, the European Union imposed sanctions on the Russian Defence Minister, Sergei Shoigu, and a number of other Russian military officials. Do the UK Government have any plans to do similar?
James Heappey
It is the policy of the Government not to talk about future sanctions, I suspect for fear that that becomes part of the calculation in the Kremlin about what to do or not to do next in a way that may not be entirely helpful. I accept that there is a counter-argument—it could be a deterrent—but I think that, on balance, it is probably right to keep people guessing about what else may be up our sleeve if things do not stop soon.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I would like to thank Mr Bone for his urgent question and the Minister for responding to questions for just under an hour. I would also like to thank all Members for coming, at short notice, to ask the Minister the questions that they have asked today. As has been said, the thoughts and prayers of the British Parliament, and indeed of the British people, are with the people of Ukraine today.
Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sally-Ann Hart
To go back to the forced marriage unit, it set out additional information on the cases it dealt with in 2020. Of the cases that it provided advice or support to in 2020, 26% involved victims below 18 years of age, 37% involved victims aged 18 to 25 and 9% involved victims with mental capacity concerns, while 79% involved female victims and 21% involved male victims.
Last year, the Government published their tackling violence against women and girls strategy, which sets out a range of actions aimed at tackling acts of violence or abuse that disproportionately affect women and girls, and forced marriage is identified as one such issue. The strategy states that
“the Government remains committed to the goal of ending child marriage in this country. We also recognise the need to signal to other countries that child marriage is something which needs to be tackled.”
The strategy also states:
“Child marriage and having children too early in life can deprive children of important life chances, which is why the Government will support raising the age of marriage and civil partnership in England and Wales from 16 to 18, when an appropriate legislative vehicle becomes available, to help stamp out marriage of minors. The age of 18 is widely recognised as the age at which one becomes an adult, and at which full citizenship rights should be gained.”This Bill is the legislative vehicle to stamp out the marriage of minors, and I wholeheartedly support it and the amendments agreed to today.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I express my very sincere congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who got the ball rolling on this, but principally to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on her heroic work in getting the Bill to this point. My congratulations go to her family in the Gallery—she married at a respectable age—and most of all to the campaigners. It is a tremendous thing that they have done, and I am very much in awe of their campaigning and their work, so many thanks and congratulations.
As my hon. Friend says, if someone is too young to consent to marriage, they are too young to marry. That is an absolutely inviolable point. I am glad that we are honouring the declarations of various international bodies, such as UNICEF, which says that child marriage is a violation of human rights; our own commitments to the sustainable development goals, which committed this country to eliminate child, early and forced marriage; and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which says that there should be no legal way to marry before 18, even with parental consent.
I understand that in 2018, the last year for which data has been collected, there were only 147 marriages of people aged 16 or 17, of whom 80% were female—girls—which tells a tale. Of course, our real concern is about the marriages of children that take place abroad and can then be recognised here in the UK. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members that the legislation is not about criminalising the actions of children; it is about seeking to stop adults organising child marriage.
I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), who spoke so well, passionately and with enormous sincerity about his own mother and the work she did, having been a child bride herself, to found a school in her village to educate girls. What an inspiration she must have been both to her own daughters, who grew up to have professional careers, and to the hon. Member himself. I am grateful to have heard that story.
I applaud the commitment in this legislation to remove what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire calls the Gretna Green exceptions. I am very pleased to hear that Northern Ireland is consulting on raising the age of marriage, and I hope that Scotland does so, too. I am sure that they will want to align with the sustainable development goals as soon as possible.
I think I speak accurately when I say that I am sure my hon. Friend is not being anti-marriage with this legislation; I know that she has the opposite attitude. We need more marriage in this country. I recognise what the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall said about the life-limiting effects of early marriage, but we can overcompensate as, to a degree, we have in this country. I was dismayed and concerned to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire say that the average age of marriage in this country is now over 30. We have organised the economic and social rewards in our society to put off marriage and children until very late, which I regret. The decline of marriage in our society should be a cause of great regret, as it is a cause of much distress to adults.
We are talking about the rights of children, and the greatest right a child has is to a secure home. We know that marriage is the best means of ensuring this. There are many economic pressures on families in our society, and we have the smallest houses and the longest commutes in Europe. What does that do to family life? We have steadily removed the fiscal support for marriage over the past two generations, and there is a cultural or ideological attack on marriage and the family. There is an assumption that marriage is a patriarchal institution that is inherently abusive and unequal. We have heard stories today of where that can be the case, so we need to remove the danger of fulfilling that false stereotype of marriage.
Marriage is a public act for a reason, and in the Anglican service we are asked to give any just cause or impediment for why a couple should not be married. This Bill removes the possibility of abuse and the opportunity for child marriage. Marriage is fundamentally about the responsibilities of adulthood, and it is the foundation of our society. This Bill restores the integrity of the institution, and I am very proud to support it.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on introducing this important Bill, which I support.
This is an incredibly complex Bill, and it has been a real team effort. I thank the Ministers and officials, and I pay particular tribute to those in the Public Gallery and other tireless campaigners for raising awareness of this child abuse.
Many of us are parents, and we have all been 16, albeit for some of us it is a distant memory. When I was 16, I thought I would marry David Cassidy. I thought we would have kids called Kylie and Jason and a dog called Freeway. We know how grown-up and responsible we felt at 16, but we also realise just how much we still had to learn and experience at that young age.
In the UK, the average age of marriage is now 30. The fact that official figures for the marriage of 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK continue to fall is evidence that, in general, our society recognises that marriage before the age of 18 is not necessarily the great idea it might seem at that age. It is widely recognised, however, that the official UK data does not reflect the full picture. It does not take account of child marriages enacted through religious and customary ceremonies that are not legally recognised, and there is, of course, currently no way of monitoring the misuse of the loophole that permits parents in the UK to use parental consent to force their children into matrimony.
My hon. Friend’s Bill expands existing criminal law on forced marriage to make it illegal for a person to arrange the marriage of anyone under the age of 18 in England and Wales. Importantly, the offence will apply to any religious or civil ceremony of marriage, whether or not it is deemed legally binding in the UK and whether or not coercion is used.
The amendments debated today add further weight to the Bill, making it more targeted and offering more protection to young girls by removing significant loopholes in the current legislation, including deception, in England, Wales and elsewhere. Elsewhere is important, as marriage is devolved and a child can be taken to Northern Ireland or Scotland to marry. I was pleased to support amendment 4, and I state for the record that Northern Ireland is consulting on the age of marriage. I hope Scotland will do the same, as it is important to remove this dangerous loophole so that all children in the UK are covered.
These changes align with the Government’s tackling violence against women and girls strategy and will provide unequivocal protection to young women in the UK.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about the need to raise the age of marriage. Does she agree that if somebody is judged too young to buy an alcoholic drink in a bar, drive a car or buy a firework, and too young to be trusted to vote in an election or to consent to a marriage, they must be too young to marry?
Virginia Crosbie
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful words. He makes a powerful statement with which I wholeheartedly agree.
The UN estimates that 110 million girls will marry before their 18th birthday in the next decade. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends that there should be no legal way for anyone to marry before they turn 18, even if there is parental consent. In 2016, it made the recommendation that the UK
“raise the minimum age of marriage to 18 years across all devolved administrations, overseas territories and Crown dependencies.”
The UN sustainable development goals require all countries to eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation by 2030. It is a duty of the UK Government to take a lead and clearly demonstrate that they take the matter seriously and that child marriage, under any circumstances, is wrong. In doing so, the Bill will not just serve the girls of the UK but help to tackle child marriage globally.
It is a privilege to be the Member of Parliament for Ynys Môn. I entered politics to try to make tomorrow a better day for as many as possible and to try to be a voice for those who have no voice, particularly children. We now have a Bill to protect some of the most vulnerable in this country and around the world, and I am proud to give it my support.
Mr Holden
I am honoured to be able to speak today and I was delighted to serve on the Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) in the earlier stages of the Bill. It is great to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and others who have made great speeches.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire knows, the Bill will have to go through the other place as well, so it is great to see Baroness Sugg in the Gallery, who has been great in supporting me in some of the legislation that I have been pushing for on banning hymenoplasty and virginity testing. I know that my hon. Friend has also been working with Payzee, Karma Nirvana and others who are also in the Gallery, who have been supportive in pushing this legislation forwards and in pushing for rights for women and girls in many other areas.
We need to concentrate on the small number of people who are using the exemption at the moment. They are not the children themselves, but their parents and other adults who are pushing them into it. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), in his superb speech, mentioned the importance of education and how people should be pursuing objectives in their lives before making big decisions such as marriage. It was a powerful speech and it is great that the Bill has fantastic cross-party support.
I am also delighted that the amendments have been made to the Bill, especially on the issue of deceiving a child, and it is great that progress has been made to tighten up the amendments relating to judicial scope. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire referred to, the Gretna Green amendment, which relates to domiciliary versus habitual residency, is important and plays into what hon. Members have spoken about relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I hope that those devolved nations look at the recommendations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and at the superb letter from the Joint Committee on Human Rights by the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who emphasised the points that were made and how they support the actions taken in the Bill.
As hon. Members have mentioned, changing the law is one thing but changing attitudes is another. As with my amendments to the Health and Care Bill about virginity testing and hymenoplasty, I hope making this change to the law will actually drive real cultural changes. We are showing leadership by changing the law in this House, but only by embedding those cultural changes will we see changes not only in this country but across the rest of the world.
This is one of the many measures from Back Benchers that this Government have been supporting. I hope that they will do more on women’s rights, which are often one of those things where battles feel that they may have already been won, but that is definitely not the case. As we have seen with various private Members’ Bills and amendments to other Bills over the past year or two, there is still further to go. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire on doing what she has done and thank Members from across the House for their support for her. I hope that we can all continue to push forward on some of these issues, because these battles are still to be won.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Let me start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for his speech and, in particular, what he said about his mother. I was struck by how heartfelt it was and by the opportunity that she gave. My biggest concern was for those who are not so fortunate as to have such an opportunity, which is why this legislation is so important. That leads me on to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), whom I congratulate on her strength and ability to bring the technical aspects forward and on having the courage of her conviction to stand up and make the statement, “This is wrong.” I wholeheartedly support her.
I got married recently, in 2019. It took me seven years to pop the question and 18 months to organise the wedding.
Dr Evans
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind compliments. I am the tender age of 39, so there is still a bit of time to go there. Time does pass fast for those who need to wait two years, although my wife may have wished the seven years had passed more quickly.
To me, there are three parts to becoming married: the legal aspect; the religious aspect; and the declaration to one’s friends and family. I am not religious, and I had a legal wedding held in a registry office, with a celebration with my friends and family two weeks later. When I went into that legal office, I was struck by the interviews and questions, with me and my partner being separated in order to find out what was going on, how we were stepping into this and what thought process we had gone through. This was done to see whether there was any coercion. That is what brought my attention to this Bill, because it struck me that it is so important to do that. I thought, “If this is happening to adults, what must happen to children at this point?” The fact that the legislation was not there to protect people was a huge concern for me.
So I am so pleased to see this legislation being brought forward, especially with the extension to the age of 18. Other Members have made the point that we are coalescing around the age of 18 for education, tobacco, tattoos, alcohol and indeed voting. So this seems sensible to me, because that is where we are defining the end of childhood and moving on to later life.
Mr Holden
In the past year or so, we have also increased the age at which people can buy a lottery ticket to 18. So we are moving in this direction right across the piece, and that recognition of adulthood at 18 is at the core of all my hon. Friend is saying and of the Bill.
Dr Evans
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on that. There is a debate as to whether joining the armed forces should move from 16 to 18 as well, in order to join it all up, from voting to tobacco, alcohol and gambling. Eighteen seems a sensible place to call it, and the House should be able to agree on that.
When I came to look at the Bill, there were concerns about it: would we just drive the practice further underground? How will it actually be tackled? And how will it be enforced? I am so pleased to hear that the provision is being extended to cover anyone who has ever lived in the UK, because that is really important in order to cut out that loophole. I was also pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire so eloquently make the point about the importance of education on this in schools. I would go one step further, because, as a GP, I know it is really important that social services and healthcare workers, who will often see people at their most vulnerable and have the opportunity to pick up on these things, are aware that this is still a problem. We may be talking only about 150 or so cases, but that still means 150 or so lives that could in theory be ruined. Medical professionals and social services should be able to pick up on that and to have the training to be able to do so. There is a concern about whether this is a chicken and egg situation, but we have to start somewhere. I am pleased that the legislation will lead into changing the culture that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) has so honestly talked about.
Having a Minister sat in front of me when it comes to talking about the issue of marriage, it would be remiss of me not to lead on to a couple of further points. Here I wish to draw some parallel with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who talked about the institution of marriage. I entirely agree with him that we should be encouraging more people to get married.
The pandemic put a spotlight on marriage and the way in which we do it—how we relaxed the legislation on where it can happen and what it can look like. That is a really important thing, because the culture around marriage is changing, as we have heard in this debate. Going forward, there is an argument for recognising humanist marriages in our current culture, and I was very grateful that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), replied to a letter I wrote about humanist marriages, to say:
“As I expressed during the recent Westminster Hall debate on humanist marriage in England and Wales, marriage will always be one of our most important institutions, and we have a duty to consider the implications of any changes to the law in this area very carefully.
The Government remains 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. The Law Commission will present options for reforms to modernise marriage law, including 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. The Government will carefully consider the Law Commission’s recommendations when the final report is published.”
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, because there is an opportunity here to address some of the religious and cultural aspects of marriage as one of those three pillars that I mentioned. To me, the fundamental part was the declaration in front of my friends and family. That may well be a religious aspect for other people, but we have a chance to create a framework that incorporates all the good work of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire into a wider set of legislation. I hope the Government are listening, because there is a real opportunity to give people the opportunity to enter into marriage and provide that stability for their family, their children, and of course their community. I wholeheartedly support the Bill.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on having brought forward this Bill. She has campaigned tirelessly on this issue for many years, and I commend her for stepping into the breach and expertly guiding this legislation through Committee to today’s Third Reading. I was privileged to support her in serving on the Bill Committee, and I am pleased to be here to support her today. I know from my own experience that bringing forward a private Member’s Bill is a hugely rewarding process, particularly when it stands a real chance of becoming law, but it can also be a challenging one, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on reaching this stage. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) for the work that he has done, not just in support of the Bill but on child protection more generally. It was good to see him in his place earlier.
The most important thing to note about this Bill is that it is not an attack on the institution of marriage; it offers marriage significant respect, aiming to ensure that those who enter into a marriage are fully able to judge whether it is the right choice for them. The age of 18 is an appropriate point at which to set a benchmark for such a lifelong commitment, and not before. While statistics show that child marriage primarily affects girls, it must be remembered that this issue can affect boys, too. The Bill is essential to protecting all children, no matter their sex.
Child marriage can have a devastating impact on vulnerable children, denying them the opportunity to fully participate in society. We know that children who are subject to child marriage have significantly worse opportunities and life chances, including a lack of education and job opportunities; the removal of independence; serious physical and mental health problems; and developmental difficulties for children born to young mothers, alongside an increased risk of domestic abuse and divorce. Effectively, the experience for many who are coerced into child marriage is the entrenchment of poverty and being limited to a life of low education. Banning child marriage, which this Bill effectively does, will give those who would have been vulnerable to it a greater chance to fully engage in our society, safeguarding their future so that from the age of 18 they will not have been denied the same opportunities afforded to others.
In 2022, education or vocational training is compulsory up to the age of 18, and the average age of marriage—as we have heard—is now 30. It seems entirely outdated that provision for marriage at 16 remains on our statute books, allowing children to enter into a lifelong commitment as significant as marriage before they have even completed their schooling. However, it is not surprising that the system is not fit for the modern age, given that our current laws date back to 1929.
It is essential that we ensure that children have enough time to grow and mature before entering marriage or civil partnership, which is potentially a lifelong commitment with significant legal and financial consequences. I am delighted that the Bill seeks to close loopholes and address the practice of child marriage in England and Wales while modernising legislation so that it reflects today’s society.
I have already mentioned non-registered religious and cultural marriages that take place in the UK. Indeed, laws on marriage apply only to registered marriage ceremonies; the only requirement on religious marriages is that they are not forced marriages. However, that in itself poses a problem. To prove a forced marriage, the courts must find that there has been coercion or that undue pressure has been exerted on someone to enter into the marriage. That means that, in effect, in the case of child marriages, the child would need to give evidence that may condemn their parents, but children aged 16 are unlikely to go against their parents who look after and bring them up. In effect, they cannot act independently, so the child forced into a marriage will, more likely than not, say that they consented to the child marriage.
I am pleased that the Bill rightly covers those unregistered religious marriages. It will make arrangements so that any marriage, be it religious or civil, that involves a person under the age of 18 will automatically be categorised as a forced marriage. That categorisation will remove the ability of someone to claim that consent was given. We should be mindful of that get-out in the coming months as we consider legislation covering a ban on conversion therapy.
The Bill will ensure that those who facilitate or encourage child marriage will be committing an offence and rightly face criminal charges. I am delighted that it will ensure that those who attempt to coerce children into marriage will face the consequences of their actions. They will face prison time, including a maximum sentence of 12 months in prison, or a fine—or both—in the magistrates court, or up to seven years in prison in the Crown court.
The Bill also tackles child marriages that take place abroad. All too often, a child can be taken abroad to be forced into a marriage that they are in no way old enough to consent to. Under our current legislation, we would be unable to punish those who take a child abroad for marriage unless the child was willing to testify that they had been forced into it. The Bill will close that loophole. Under its provisions, all marriages of under-18s that take place abroad will not be legally recognised in England and Wales if either party is domiciled here. That will not only act as a further obstacle to those seeking a child abroad to marry, but make it clear to professionals such as teachers and social workers that they should report children travelling abroad to marry if they are made aware of it.
I am proud that the UK is committed to achieving by 2030 the UN sustainable development goals, one of which requires all countries to eliminate the practice of child, early and forced marriages. We cannot criticise child marriage around the world and encourage other nations to stamp out that harmful practice until we have stamped it out in our country. The Bill will rightly allow us to live up to our international obligations.
I am delighted to be here to support my hon. Friend’s Bill. It will bring our legislation into the 21st century and ensure that we afford vulnerable children the protection that they deserve from forced and damaging child marriages. I hope that it will pass its Third Reading today and secure its place on the statute book.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for her outstanding commitment to this issue. I am grateful to be here to respond to this important debate on behalf of the Opposition. It has been good to see significant cross-party co-operation and consensus throughout the Bill’s stages. I support the comments made by hon. Members and the amendments that will ensure that the law cannot be bypassed and that the police will have the powers to prosecute despite lack of evidence of coercion or violence. I hope that the right guidance and training will follow for both the police and the CPS.
I, too, commend the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). It was an incredibly powerful and passionate speech about a very personal issue involving his mother and about why we must ban child marriage. In 2018, fewer than 150 fifteen and sixteen-year-olds entered marriage, out of a total of 235,000 marriages in England and Wales. But these figures understate the issue. Allowing marriage as young as 16 encourages those who support child marriage at even younger ages and has the potential to set a very dangerous precedent. Raising the age to 18 draws a clear line between child and adult. This Bill ensures that there are no circumstances under which a child can be legally married or enter a civil partnership under the age of 18—something that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child asked for back in 2016.
Barnardo’s, the children’s charity, has raised concerns that marriage for children aged 16 or 17 can result in their experiencing domestic violence and sexual abuse, and missing out on important educational opportunities. The purpose of the Bill is to address those concerns and the concern that marriage at such a young age can leave vulnerable young people open to coercion and forced marriage. Sixteen and 17-year-olds make up over 10% of forced marriages. These vulnerable children need our protection, and I am grateful to be here on behalf of the Opposition to support the Bill.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights defines child marriage as
“any marriage where at least one of the parties is under 18 years of age.”
It defines forced marriage as
“a marriage in which one and/or both parties have not personally expressed their full and free consent to the union.”
The high commissioner’s view is that all child marriages equate to forced marriages, as a child cannot give full, free and informed consent.
This issue overwhelmingly impacts women and girls. An astonishing 80% of those who married as children in 2018 were girls. As shadow Minister for victims, I have heard at first hand the devastating impact that forced marriages have on young women. I spoke to one young woman recently who bravely shared her story with me. She was terrified, fleeing from her forced marriage—forced to flee her family home, forced to hide from her parents and forced now to remain in hiding. Luckily, she is supported by a wonderful organisation, which I will not name for security reasons.
There are many great organisations out there helping young woman like that, but what about the women and girls who are not supported by anyone—the ones who are all alone, trapped in these marriages? I hope that the Government’s forthcoming victims Bill can help to address those issues, too, and increase the protection of these vulnerable individuals by consolidating their rights in statute, as the Opposition outlined in our response to the Government’s consultation. If victims are made aware of their rights, it will allow those who wish to leave marriages that they have been forced into to be supported.
There is also the issue of individuals who do not report forced marriage. Specially trained staff in schools are absolutely vital in looking out for the signs of forced marriage, but there is a concerning lack of similar training for registry office staff, as has been mentioned. Only about a fifth of reports to the forced marriage unit in 2019 were from the victims themselves. Most reports —64%—were from professionals, such as those in education, social services, and the legal and health sectors, which makes training and support for those sectors much more important.
I am pleased that the Government are supporting the Bill, but they have the opportunity to go further and support victims of forced marriages in the forthcoming victims Bill. The current law is outdated, and family life has moved on significantly since its inception. The fact that a young person must remain in education until he or she is 18 but can marry at 16 is bewildering, and has no place in the 21st century. The Bill is a crucial and substantial step forward in correcting that situation and, on behalf of the Opposition, I wish it well in its remaining stages.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
Let me begin by again offering my wholehearted support to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), who has been a persistent and tireless campaigner on this issue for many years. She has run an exemplary campaign, which Members throughout the House will no doubt want to study and monitor for their own purposes in the years ahead when introducing their own private Members’ legislation.
I pay tribute to colleagues on both sides of the House for their contributions, not just today but throughout the Bill’s passage, and for the constructive spirit in which these matters have been approached. We have seen the House at its very best. I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for the way in which he talked about his own personal experiences and those of his mother. What an inspirational story that is for all of us, and one on which we will all no doubt reflect in the days ahead: it was very much a forerunner of this Bill. I think it important also to place on record that my hon. Friend’s campaign has been so persistent and so successful that she has also had brilliant backing from both the Home Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister in getting the Bill to this stage.
Having the privilege of being the Minister responsible for marriage and divorce, I am particularly aware of how necessary these provisions are. Many people are surprised when I inform them that child marriage is still legal in this country. As our society changes for the better, it is important that our laws are kept up to date. The Bill ensures that children can no longer legally enter into a marriage or civil partnership in England and Wales. It also tackles unregistered marriage ceremonies by expanding the offence of forced marriage to make it illegal to arrange for a child to enter marriage where coercion is not used. The Bill is taking positive action to protect children. Our objective throughout has been to protect as many children as possible from this harm.
The changes to the legal age of marriage only impact individuals who wish to marry aged 16 or 17 on a temporary basis; as soon as they turn 18, they can get married if they choose. In the meantime, they can focus more fully on tasks such as completing their education, which will help to maximise their future potential and life chances. The Bill also promotes equal opportunities. We know that girls are more likely to marry as children, and therefore more likely to be impacted by the adverse effects of child marriage that my hon. Friend helpfully set out.
The Children’s Commissioner recently carried out “The Big Ask”, a national survey of England’s children. When asked about their worries, some children reported their fear of being pressurised into a marriage that they did not want. No child should have to face the horror of forced marriage. As my hon. Friend said, it is not the norm. Pressurising a child in this way is abhorrent and we should call it out for what it is. Through the Bill, of course, we are taking action not just to call it out, but to have in place a strong legal framework to deal with that abuse.
A marriage or civil partnership should only be formed if both parties freely consent and are properly able to make that choice. A family not formed on that basis is unlikely to bring benefits to its members or to society, and may be more likely to lead to issues such as domestic abuse and emotional distress. Increasing the age of marriage to 18 is also likely to reduce the risk of relationship breakdown owing to the increased age and maturity of the parties involved. Marriage is an important institution that we want to protect and strengthen as much as possible, as was so eloquently set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans).
I will now turn to the specific asks of Government made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire. I agree with her that it is vital we commence these changes as soon as possible and I know that officials are working on implementation plans. However, as much as I would like to, I cannot make a commitment that the Bill will be ready to be commenced by the school summer holidays. I am keen, however, to expedite as far as feasibly possible the work we need to do to implement the Bill.
The changes made by the Bill require a set of implementation activities, including updating the General Register Office’s IT systems and amending secondary legislation. Forced marriage changes will impact multiple agencies, requiring updates to guidance, systems and processes. Those would most likely affect the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, the Prison Service and the probation service. We also need to make sure that the public are given plenty of notice that the law is changing and to be mindful of those who may be planning weddings which were perfectly legal at the time that notice was given.
As the Bill would not reach Royal Assent until later this Session, the ask would therefore be commencement within a few months, and I fear that that is too steep a mountain to climb. Much implementation activity cannot happen until Royal Assent, because until then we cannot be certain that the Bill will become law or what its exact shape will be. Like my hon. Friend, however, I have every confidence in Baroness Sugg, who I know will shepherd the Bill effectively through the other place to make sure no time is wasted at that end in getting the legislation into law. At our end, I give my hon. Friend my assurance that we will commence as soon as we possibly can, but just as it is important that this law starts protecting children as soon as possible, it is also important that it does not come in until the relevant statutory agencies are properly set up to deal with it, because there would be nothing worse than a case which was mishandled through lack of knowledge or gaps in the underlying systems. She knows I always like to drive a hard bargain. I am mindful of timeliness and I can assure her there will be no needless or unnecessary delay.
I can also reassure my hon. Friend that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), and I will both work with the Department for Education to ensure that we raise awareness in schools about the changes in the law. I understand that next week she will be meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), the Minister for children and families, to discuss that very issue. As with so many changes in the realm of hidden harms such as forced marriage, changes in the law are a necessary but by no means sufficient condition to achieve change on the ground. I can also tell her, by way of an update, that I recently had a meeting with the Children’s Commissioner where I raised this very issue. It is fair to say that my hon. Friend would be pushing at an open door in terms of engaging with her, because she has been exceptionally supportive of the Bill and is keen to help on awareness. I am grateful to the Children’s Commissioner for her support for this work.
Mr Virendra Sharma
This is an historic move in British history and it will be remembered for many years to come, so can the Minister look at naming the Bill the Pauline Latham Bill?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman is one of the most decent and incredibly kind Members of this House. I have to say, however, that I do not think that that is a decision I will have to make, as it is highly likely that the Bill will regularly be referred to as the Pauline Latham Bill and rightly so. All of us in this House are incredibly proud of her for the work she has done in advancing this cause. I think that decision may be taken out of our hands, because that will just be the term by which the legislation will be referred to. We are grateful to her—we really are.
I can confirm that the multi-agency guidance which the Home Office produces on forced marriage will be updated to take account of the changes to the law. That contains chapters for different professions, including the police, teachers and social workers, and we will update all of them to reflect the amendments in the law. I am sure that, as they always do, the College of Policing will update operational guidance for the police in line with the changes to our guidance. While it is not for me to promise changes to the CPS guidance, as the CPS is independent, it will always make necessary changes to its guidance to reflect changes in the law, and I see no reason why it would not do so in this case, too. By way of trying to be constructive, I will undertake to ensure awareness among my ministerial colleagues in different parts of Government, so that the conversations they have with those various agencies in the months ahead touch on this issue, and underline the importance we place on it and the need to get these things right.
Mr Holden
One issue we are trying to address today is the cultural issue. Will the Minister commit to at least examining having a proper awareness campaign when the law changes, with a good round of media interviews from Ministers, and reaching out into communities where we know this issue is more prevalent than in others? It is important that we ram home the message from this united House not just that there is a change in the law, but that we are trying to drive a broader cultural change in society.
Tom Pursglove
Having been his Whip, I know my hon. Friend is always brimming with ideas about initiatives that the Government can take forward. He makes a rather good suggestion and it is certainly something I am mindful of and want to take away and consider. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have heard extremely difficult testimony from individuals who have suffered the pain and trauma of these sorts of marriages. They have talked bravely about the impact that that has had on them, their families and their lives. It is important that we help them to share their stories in a way that they are comfortable with, to ensure that we drive awareness of these changes. I am always keen to do media interviews about positive announcements, as he will appreciate, but often hearing directly from survivors of this sort of unacceptable abuse is the most powerful testimony and will be inspirational in generating that greater awareness, ensuring that people know exactly the signs to spot and articulating the measures that we are taking to clamp down on this.
On the Scotland and Northern Ireland plea, I must respect that the devolved Administrations are independent. Indeed, we have taken great care to respect the devolution settlement, hence the amendments made today, ensuring that the law covers only those situations where there is a clear link to England and Wales. We in England and Wales are levelling up, tackling the awful practice of child marriage. I have put on the record in the House, and will repeat now, my wholehearted hope that Scotland and Northern Ireland will follow our lead. Colleagues in Edinburgh and Belfast cannot fail to have heard the unanimous backing for these vital measures in the House. We have all committed to eliminating child marriage by 2030 under the UN sustainable development goals. Setting a strong example at home will also help to tackle the issue globally. Leadership by example is crucial in that regard.
I have no doubt that the passionate campaign that we have seen in Westminster will now focus its energies on Edinburgh and Belfast with great vigour. I hope that Scottish and Northern Irish colleagues in this House, from all parties, will want to take this forward and champion the agenda in the devolved areas. That is important advocacy. They ought to consider taking up that baton to help the campaign in any way they can.
In closing, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire for introducing this important Bill. I also reiterate, wholeheartedly, the Government’s support for it. It is an enormous privilege to be the victims Minister. One reason for that is that I come across exceptional people who have been through so much and show great courage, despite the trauma, distress, sadness, hurt and upset that they feel. Often, they put others first to ensure that the harm, suffering and distress that they feel does not happen to others. A remarkable group of people have been involved in this work and I wish briefly to pay tribute to and thank them. Naomi, Natasha, Farhana, Sara, Payzee, Charlotte, Lubna and Nana—thank you for the work you have done on this issue. Your advocacy has been extraordinary. I have no doubt that the work that you have done, the courage that you have shown and the effort that you have put in will change the lives of thousands of young people in our country for the better.
I am delighted that we are joined in the House today by the Lathams. I thank Derek, Tracey, Poppy and Harry for your superb support for wife, for mum, for grandma who has done something very special. We are hugely grateful to her and incredibly proud of her, and I know that you will be as well. We just all join in that tribute.
This may not be a long Bill, but the impact is far-reaching, and many lives will be changed for the better because of it. On what is a dark day in our world, this is a chink of light and one that all of us in this House and across the country can welcome. With that, I thank my officials for the work that they have done to bring this forward: the Bill manager, Alice Harrison; Andrew Lewis; Rachel Stark; Nichola Henderson; and Joanna Norris as well as those in my private office, particularly Thomas McDonald, and Minister Maclean’s private office as well. Everybody who has been involved in the Bill can be incredibly proud of it. I wish it a speedy passage through the House of Lords and I commend it to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It is now my pleasure to call my friend who apparently is going to give her name to an Act—perhaps.
Mrs Latham
With the leave of the House, I would like to say a few words of thanks. It has been a strange day. I cannot remember any time when a Bill has been interrupted by an urgent question and then continued, so it has been a little strange today. I thank those who came to support me for sitting through not just the Bill, which has been exceptionally long, but the urgent question, too.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members in this House who have contributed to today’s debate, and also to other debates that we have had through the passage of this Bill. It has been a pleasure to hear the resounding support to end child marriage from every corner of the House. As many people know, I have campaigned on this issue for many years—I think it is five years, but it might be six or even four; I forget. The Bill has been supported every step of the way by the charities that make up the Girls Not Brides UK coalition—Karma Nirvana, the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, the Independent Yemen Group, the Foundation of Women’s Health Research and Development and others. They have been tireless in their support. I am delighted that they can be here to witness this House vote to end child marriage. Like the Minister, I thank them for all their hard work, without which we would not be at this stage today. They have been tireless and they have kept us focused to make sure that this is the best Bill that we could possibly have.
I particularly want to thank two of our amazing ambassadors: Payzee Mahmod and Farhana Raval. They have been incredibly brave telling their stories and inspirational for many of us who have gone on this journey. They have shone a light on the terrible consequences of child marriage. I thank Payzee and Farhana for their support.
On the legal side, I must pay tribute to two superb barristers who work with the group: Naomi Wiseman and Dr Charlotte Proudman. We also have two little ones up in the Public Gallery who have also sat through pretty much most of this today. They will not be allowed to get married when they get to 16; they will have to wait until they are 18. The support of Naomi Wiseman and Dr Charlotte Proudman in drafting and their technological knowledge was instrumental in getting the wording of the Bill exactly right.
I have already mentioned the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) Without their advocacy within Government, their incredible support and their willingness to listen time and again to my representations—they must have thought, “Oh, she’s at it again”—we could not have got this Bill to the excellent stage in which it now finds itself. Their officials have also been tenacious, hard-working and supportive, and I thank them for engaging with me and the team of experts at Girls Not Brides UK.
The Clerk of the private Members’ Bills has been incredibly helpful, indeed probably more so than even he realises and I am grateful to him and all the House staff, including those in the Library and the Public Bill Office, who have enabled the progress so far of this piece of legislation. Without Government support, this Bill would have gone nowhere; private Members’ Bills get nowhere without Government support. When I went to see the Prime Minister, he suddenly got what I was trying to do, understood it, supported it, and made sure that Ministers supported it, so I am very grateful to him for his incredible support. I have even had a note from him congratulating me on getting to this stage, so he watches what is going on. I am also grateful to those on the Opposition Front Bench. The shadow Minister gave a very supportive speech on Second Reading in November and demonstrated solidarity with this important cause.
From the start of this process, as a ten-minute rule Bill in the Session before last, via Second Reading and Committee, there have been simply too many parliamentary supporters for me to name individually, but I wish to thank my colleagues on the International Development Committee, including the Chair, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). She cannot be here today, but she has been a passionate advocate for the cause throughout the process. I also wish to thank, along with many others, the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), who has been a constant source of support. He never hesitated when I asked, “Will you support this?” He said, “Yes” immediately. Like many of the best achievements in the House, this has truly been a cross-party effort.
Finally, I wish to place on record once again my gratitude to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid). As Members will know, he was drawn in the ballot for the private Members’ Bills. I have never been drawn in the ballot, but he was on his first time of entering. I was so delighted when he was appointed to the Government as then he could not take up his place, and he graciously gave up his slot to me rather than turn down the job. Without that gesture, the Bill might not have got here today. It only remains for me to say thank you and good luck to Baroness Sugg, who has watched from the Gallery throughout today and will steer the Bill through the other place. I can think of no more appropriate champion for it and I am delighted to place it in her capable hands. Let us put a stop to child marriage once and for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Pension Schemes (Conversion of Guaranteed Minimum Pensions) Bill
Friday 25th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pension Schemes (Conversion of Guaranteed Minimum Pensions) Act 2022 View all Pension Schemes (Conversion of Guaranteed Minimum Pensions) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As I said on Second Reading, the Bill will help occupational pension schemes correct a basic issue of men and women being treated differently in contracted-out defined benefit occupational pension schemes because of the impact of having a guaranteed minimum pension, or GMP. It will help pension schemes to meet their legal obligations and ensure that people do not receive less pension income than they would have done had they been the opposite sex. In other words, it will help schemes to correct a situation that is fundamentally unfair.
I am proud to have brought the Bill before the House. I was delighted to hear the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) announce on Second Reading that the Government would support it. The support that the Bill has attracted from across the House is testament to both its importance and its essential simplicity. It makes a few changes to pensions legislation that will help occupational pension schemes to resolve a long-term issue of unequal treatment.
The pensions industry has itself been asking for the measures in this Bill, and as a result of those measures, schemes will be better able to use the GMP conversion process to correct for the differences in pension outcomes for men and women that have arisen as a result of GMPs. It is very pleasing that hon. Members from across the House have recognised and responded to this need.
For the benefit of those who were not present for the previous stages of this Bill, I will give a short recap of its background and purpose. GMPs are the minimum pension that certain occupational pension schemes must provide to their members. Occupational pension schemes that were contracted out of the additional state pension on a salary-related basis between April 1978 and April 1997 are required to pay their members GMPs as a floor that the occupational pension cannot fall below. The intention was that when reaching the age at which GMPs become payable, the amount of GMP that a member of a contracted-out scheme would have accrued would be broadly similar in value to the additional state pension they would have received if they had not been contracted out. Rather than paying a higher rate of national insurance contributions to build up rights to additional state pension, members of salary-related contracted-out schemes built up rights to a GMP.
However, the way that GMPs were accrued by people means that they differ for men and women, due to historical differences of treatment in the pensions system based on people’s sex. People with the same employment history can therefore have different amounts of GMP depending on whether they are a man or a woman, even if they do exactly the same job for the same length of time at the same salary. Both men and women can lose out on pension income in retirement as a result of their sex: it is not as simple as one sex losing out consistently over the other. I have discussed this issue in this House several times now, and I still find it difficult to believe that people can lose out on even a small amount of pension income purely because of these differences.
Fortunately, successive UK Governments have made clear for over three decades that occupational pension schemes need to equalise pensions accrued since then to correct for these effects of GMPs. The High Court confirmed in 2018 that occupational pension schemes must equalise pensions accrued since 17 May 1990 to address the effects of those differences. Occupational pension schemes are therefore required to undertake a process known as GMP equalisation, correcting people’s overall pensions to ensure that they are not lower than they would have been had the person been of the opposite sex. That is why the Department for Work and Pensions published a suggested methodology based on the overall value of the pension, which relies on the process of converting GMPs to normal scheme benefits. It is elements of this process that the Bill before us addresses.
Unfortunately, correcting people’s pensions in this way is proving a very slow process. There are a number of ways in which the task of GMP equalisation could be approached. One way, for example, would be to look at the pension in each year and compare what a man and a woman would have received, and pay the higher of the two. The problem with this approach is that it would result in members getting more overall than either a man or a woman would have received before the equalisation process. This would have been prohibitively expensive for schemes, and would in itself be unfair.
The DWP, working with the pensions industry, proposed a methodology based on the overall value of the pension, set out in guidance for pension schemes to use. This methodology involved converting the GMP into normal scheme benefits using the existing legislative framework. The industry agrees with that approach, but is worried that the current legislation that supports the conversion process has some gaps that the industry believes will leave it exposed to legal risk or potential accusations that it has not equalised correctly.
For example, we need to clarify the way in which survivor benefits are treated in the conversion legislation. The industry has pointed out that the legal requirements for survivor benefits when GMPs are converted are not clear enough. Survivor benefits are the benefits paid out to a scheme member’s widow, widower, or surviving civil partner when the member dies. Schemes need legal certainty and a clear framework before they can move forward with this process. This Bill seeks to provide that essential certainty to schemes.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
In the last 10 years since it was introduced, the automatic enrolment scheme has enabled 4,000 of my constituents on Ynys Môn to establish a pension. I congratulate the hon. Member on this important Bill. Does she agree that it addresses uncertainties in the current legislation and removes the risk of misapplication?
Margaret Ferrier
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and I absolutely agree. This Bill is set to remove those uncertainties so that these occupational schemes can get on with the equalisation process that they have always known they should be carrying out anyway.
The Bill removes the text in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 that sets out what survivor benefits following GMP conversion must look like, and replaces it with a power to set out those conditions in regulations. When this provision was discussed in Committee, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) to confirm that the Government would consult on the content of those regulations. I am pleased to say that he agreed to that.
Before converting GMPs, pension schemes are required to get the consent of the sponsoring employer that funds the scheme, which might look to be reasonable, considering that the sponsoring employer has invested a lot of money to ensure that scheme members receive a decent retirement income. Unfortunately, it is not that straightforward, because current legislation does not account for all possible situations, such as where the original sponsoring employer is no longer in business. Again, the Bill removes the requirement for employer consent in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and replaces it with a power to set out in regulations the details of the relevant persons who must consent to the conversion. I am again pleased to say that the Minister confirmed in Committee that the Government would also consult on the content of those regulations.
Finally, the Bill removes the requirement that pension schemes have to notify Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs when they carry out a GMP conversion exercise. In Committee, the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) very reasonably asked what checks would be in place if HMRC no longer had to be notified that people’s GMPs have been converted into other scheme benefits. I would like to reassure the hon. Member that the removal of the requirement that a scheme must notify HMRC if it converts GMP rights into other rights was requested by HMRC. The notification requirement was not a check by HMRC on whether an individual scheme had carried out a GMP conversion correctly. Responsibility for the accuracy of the conversion lies with the pension scheme’s trustees, and they must take advice on certain matters from the scheme actuary.
The requirement to notify HMRC if a conversion has been carried out is simply a legacy of the time when members of occupational pension schemes paid a lower rate of national insurance if they were contracted out. Because both the employer and the scheme members were paying lower national insurance contributions, HMRC used to need to keep detailed records of all contracted-out schemes. However, when contracting out ended for all occupational pension schemes in April 2016, with the introduction of the new state pension, employers and members no longer paid a lower level of national insurance. HMRC therefore no longer needs to be notified.
As this information is no longer required by HMRC, from 2019 it has said to schemes that it no longer requires them to notify it if GMP conversion has been carried out. However, because it is still a requirement of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, schemes should normally still submit such information to HMRC, despite its having no use or need for it. As I said, it costs schemes time and money to notify HMRC, it costs HMRC time and money to process the notifications, and there is no need beyond the current requirement in the 1993 Act for any of this time and money to be spent.
I reiterate to the House that the Bill does not impose any new costs or requirements on occupational pension schemes or their sponsoring employers. As I said, affected schemes have known that they need to equalise pensions for the effect of GMP for many years, and they should have been planning for equalisation. The Bill will simply help pension schemes that decide to use GMP conversion to do what they need to do to ensure payments are fair. I have engaged positively with representatives from the pensions industry, who have long called for these changes and welcome the Bill’s provisions. I am extremely pleased and proud that my Bill will help schemes that want to use GMP conversion to correct for the effects of this issue, and I am delighted by the cross-party support I have received so far and again today.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on bringing forward this Bill and I thank her for allowing me to participate in her debate.
Pensions are integral to our society; they are a means whereby individuals can reap the benefits of their hard work throughout their life, in old age. When someone reaches an age where they are no longer earning, they need an income to survive, and this is where a pension kicks in. It is a payment that, we hope, allows a retired individual to have economic freedom. It is a point in our lives we should all be looking forward to. People often fall into the trap of thinking that they are able to save enough money to comfortably live when they are no longer earning. Unfortunately, a lot of the time they do not save enough to enjoy the standard of living they hoped for in retirement.
A state pension is a great starting point but if, like me, they want to enjoy the luxuries of old age, they would need to think about investing in a pension scheme. It is a long-term savings plan with additional benefits. There are many benefits of pension schemes such as tax relief, contributions made by the employer and tax-free lump sums when the person retires. If they pay contributions into a pension scheme, some of the money that they would have had to pay the Government in tax is in fact paid into the pension instead. The employer may match or pay more than the person contributes to the pension scheme. That is money that they would not have gained had they put their money into a savings account. Finally, they will usually be able to take up to a quarter of their pension savings as a tax-free sum.
Having expressed the importance of pensions, it is integral that both men and women can benefit from them equally. That is why I am very pleased that hon. Lady has brought this Bill to the House. It is recognised that there were disparities between pensions on the basis of sex, as a result of differences in retirement age. As she mentioned, a GMP is a pension that a workplace normally provides, and it applies only to people who contracted out of the additional state pension scheme. A GMP is usually the same, if not more, than the additional state pension had the person not contracted out of it. Previous legislation required GMPs to be determined on an unequal basis. A woman’s GMP is normally accrued at a greater rate than that of a man, to ensure that there is recognition of a woman’s working life being five years shorter than that of a man.
It is important to understand the terms “revaluation” and “indexation”. Revaluation is an increase in the value of someone’s pension before they start drawing it, whereas indexation is the rise in value of their pension while they draw it. The Government have set a rate of revaluation that schemes can use at 3.5% and there is a minimum indexation rate of 3%. Therefore, some pension schemes’ revaluation rate is higher than their indexation rate. Women used to have an earlier retirement age, and therefore they were getting indexation while men were receiving revaluation. In this instance, a woman would usually get a higher pension rate until they started claiming their pension, which would remove their revaluation rise and replace it with an indexation rise, whereas a male would be entitled to a revaluation rate for a further five years until their rate, too, was switched to an indexation rate.
Schemes are required to remedy that through equalisation, but it has never been clear how to go about that. The Bill seeks to clarify that. The current situation is the perfect example of de facto change but not necessarily de jure change. The Bill clarifies that the legislation is to remedy the disparity as it applies to survivors as well as earners. That is important, because the sad reality is that it is common for individuals to become widowed and it is vital that the surviving spouse can claim the disparity for which the deceased spouse was eligible.
The Bill provides a power to set out in regulations the conditions that must be met in relation to the survivor’s benefits, making it clearer and easier for survivors to claim the remedy. It provides for a power to set out in regulations detail about who must consent to the conversion, giving further clarification on what is needed to claim the remedy. Finally, it will remove the requirement to notify HMRC. I am told that HMRC needs to be notified but may not be doing anything with that information. It therefore makes sense to remove that bit of red tape which, in practice, makes no material difference.
My constituents in Broxtowe will benefit from the Bill, which will allow them remedy on the disparity to which they are entitled. That will be achieved by removing red tape around pension regulation and providing further clarity. Through that, we will ensure that more individuals understand the logistics of their pensions. It should not be necessary to be an expert in finance to understand the rights and responsibilities that come with pensions, and I hope that these changes will go some way towards beginning to make that happen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on introducing the Bill.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
This is the second time in a week that we have seen important changes to regulation in insurance and pensions that will have a meaningful impact on the country. Last week, we reformed Solvency II, which will unlock billions of pounds of investment, and now we have this Bill, which is a long-overdue step towards equality between the sexes in occupational pensions. I firmly congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and my good friend the indomitable pensions Minister on this smart and thoughtful Bill.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on successfully bringing forward this well-considered Bill and for so excellently and comprehensively explaining why we need it.
When the Equal Pay Act gained Royal Assent on 29 May 1970, the House took an all-important step towards ensuring the equal treatment of the sexes in the workplace. It also sent a broader message about the United Kingdom’s societal values. Since the Act’s commencement in 1975, even greater strides have been taken towards ensuring gender equality. However, as I am sure colleagues agree, much work remains to be done to that end.
As lawmakers, we in this House all have a responsibility to strive continuously towards the goal of gender equality through legislation, whether modest, substantial or otherwise, and the Bill can rightly be seen as a means of doing that. Specifically, it will right a historical oversight by making crucial clarifications in relation to guaranteed minimum pensions equalisation and pension schemes.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you can see that I am holding a wonderful speech that I have criss-crossed out because I do not think I need to go through all of that detail—we also have other people who wish to speak and other Bills to consider. However, proposals and methodology brought in during 2016 and 2017 should be secured in relevant regulations, including the positive impact that they would have on the equality of outcome for the sexes. These concerns must be properly addressed in legislation, and that is what the Bill rightly seeks to do. It has also been welcomed by leaders across industry as covering key areas where clarification is most needed, which will make the important process of equalising benefits using GMP conversion easier.
Bearing that positive reception from industry in mind, and given the broader message that it sends about the importance of the equality of the sexes in legislative matters both significant and modest, I strongly welcome the Bill and offer it my wholehearted support.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart).
Let me begin by congratulating my friend the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). I know only too well what a privilege it is to be successful in the ballot, and I congratulate her on guiding this Bill through its legislative journey. It is commendable that it deals with such an important issue, and I am pleased to be able to speak about it today.
I am also delighted that the Bill extends to England, Wales and Scotland, and that Northern Ireland has asked to be covered by it as well. That is another great benefit for our United Kingdom. There were, at the final count in 2015, about 8 million people across the United Kingdom with contracted-out memberships, and the Bill has the potential to benefit those 8 million people. I cannot imagine a reason why anyone in the House would not be in favour of that.
The Bill relates specifically to the issue of guaranteed minimum pensions, but pensions have been on the agenda in the House on a number of occasions in recent weeks. I was pleased to speak in a recent Westminster Hall debate hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) is leading a sterling campaign to extend auto-enrolment to many more people, which would be a fantastic way to level up throughout our United Kingdom and ensure that trillions more go into our pension pots, thus ensuring that the poorest in society have a more secure future. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that, as I know he is a champion for pensioners. I also know that he would like an opportunity, when he winds up the debate, to highlight the £1.8 billion-worth of unclaimed pension credit pots out there, which could serve as vital assistance to pensioners in our constituencies. But let me return to the specific issue of the Bill, as opposed to wider pension benefits.
This Bill will make the process of equalising with the use of guaranteed minimum pensions easier, and it is worthy of the support of all of us in the House. I look forward to seeing it pass its Third Reading today, and congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West once again on her efforts.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I will keep my remarks brief, because I know that there are many good speeches still to come. Let me first refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a practising chartered accountant, and also the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on small and micro business.
I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for introducing an excellent Bill which will achieve a great deal. As a practising accountant who had to live through the introduction of auto-enrolment, I have a love-hate relationship with it, and with pensions, although of course I see the fantastic benefit that they bring. Recent figures show that in my constituency alone, more than 22,000 employees in 1,830 businesses across Meriden have automatically enrolled. That scheme is a great achievement, providing security and a pot of money for people to rely on when they retire. Hopefully they will look back at us for many decades to come, and thank us for taking the measures that we have taken.
Speaking as the chair of the APPG, I hope the Minister will assure me that, as pension changes occur—I am sure he has already envisaged them—there will be consultation with businesses, because small and micro businesses often feel that they are not part of the conversation. That said, when auto-enrolment was introduced, the SME sector was quite relieved by the consultations that took place. That also showed that the Government can introduce good legislation with good IT systems behind it, as we have also seen recently with the furlough scheme, in respect of which I was involved in getting my clients on with real-time information.
The Bill is excellent and is what I call an equaliser Bill, quite rightly bringing women on a par with men. There are many other things to achieve on that journey but I wholeheartedly support this legislation. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West on her cross-party thinking. As we have seen in recent week, great things can be achieved when the House comes together in unity. I thank her and the Minister for all their work.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on introducing the Bill, which the Opposition are pleased to support, as we were at previous stages. As the hon. Lady and others have said, it will help occupational pension schemes to correct the basic issue of men and women being treated differently in those schemes because of the impact of a guaranteed minimum pension. It will also help pension schemes to ensure that people do not receive less pension income than they would have received had they been of the opposite sex. As the hon. Lady and others have said, the legislation has been welcomed throughout the industry and there is broad consensus that it is the right thing to do.
We should do all we can to help the pensions industry to fulfil what is now its legal duty to deliver guaranteed minimum pension equalisation, which includes supporting the Bill. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) made clear our support for the Bill while making some general points and asking questions about the Government’s approach to communications in respect of this legislation and pensions more generally. He gently pointed out that the Government do not have an unsullied record when it comes to communication and he wanted to know a bit more about the Minister’s plans in that regard. I think the Minister was going to write to him but am not sure whether that has happened; perhaps the Minister could say a couple of words about the Government’s plans to ensure the effective communication of the message.
I reinforce our view that there must be a commitment in the Bill to a full and timely consultation with experts, the industry and others before the introduction of regulations. That consultation should address the conditions that must be met in respect of survivors’ benefits and the details about who must consent to the conversion. We asked in Committee what kind of instrument will be used to introduce the regulations and sought reassurance that parliamentarians will be able adequately to scrutinise the changes. We also asked about the requirement to notify HMRC, about which we have now heard more, which has helpfully clarified that point.
On the wider issues of gender inequality, GMP equalisation is only one way in which imbalances between men’s and women’s pensions need to be addressed. We need reassurance that the Government will commit to continuing to ensure that all aspects of gender inequality in pensions are looked at, because we know that the pensions gender gap is around double the pay gap and that small changes at the early stages of somebody’s pension career can have large repercussions.
In summary, we support the efforts in the Bill to tidy the legislation and make it easier for schemes to convert guaranteed minimum pension rights into ordinary scheme benefits. The Minister may wish to address the few important issues to be resolved, but they certainly do not distract from the Bill’s overall value and we look forward to it passing swiftly through its final stages.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The Government propose to transform United Kingdom pensions. We are making them safer, better and greener and the Bill is a further way forward. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for introducing the Bill and for the support of the official Opposition and other political parties.
Let me briefly address the three points raised by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. I assure her that there will be full consultation on the legislation. There will also be broad communication, but I will write to her on that point and place a copy of the letter in the Commons Library and the House of Lords Library so that all peers and Members can see it.
In respect of gender inequality, the hon. Lady will be aware that successive Governments have concluded that the way ahead on that is automatic enrolment—that is the greatest change. There is no doubt that automatic enrolment has transformed saving in this country. For example, in terms of workplace pensions, women were at less than 40% in 2012 and are now at more than 80%, and young people aged between 22 and 29 were at less than 40% and are now at 80%.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I agree with the Minister and welcome the Bill from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). It is a great Bill and part of the reforms to pensions that the Government are making. As the Minister mentioned auto-enrolment, can he enlighten me on the Government’s position on my Bill, which is scheduled for later today, on expanding auto-enrolment to under-22s and part-time workers, particularly women as he just mentioned?
Guy Opperman
I will deal with that point, because it is relevant to this Bill and to the consideration of the House later. As my hon. Friend will understand, we are in the latter part of this parliamentary Session. It is the end of February and the Queen’s Speech will come, in all probability—obviously I cannot commit, but it is usually—on the second Wednesday in May, so the House has a relatively limited period of time.
The hon. Lady’s Bill had its Second Reading in November. It required a Committee stage in the House of Commons, then it had to come back for Report and Third Reading. It has not even gone to the other place for consideration. It will only just get under the line, although I am sure that the other place will be keen to accept it. The reality is that there is no real way for my hon. Friend’s Bill to get through this House and the House of Lords in the time allowed, and that is the requirement of private Members’ Bills of the nature of his and all others, to be fair.
I can confirm, however, that the Government remain committed to the 2017 automatic enrolment review. It remains the case that we will, in the fullness of time, bring forward or support legislation to take the matter forward. My hon. Friend will have to bear with me. He and I have had ample conversations. I am so pleased that he is my neighbour—a great improvement on the previous one. He is a doughty campaigner for his constituents and he is right to make this particular case.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), for Darlington (Peter Gibson) and for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) who all supported the Bill and spoke extremely well and eloquently about these matters. I will not repeat my entire Second Reading speech, which lasted for, I think, nearly an hour, and of which I know all hon. Members enjoyed every word.
The greatest hits of pensions are often underrated in my experience, but the points that I made then should be repeated as if I were to speak for the next hour. We are correcting a simplification that was brought in by the last days of Mr Callaghan’s Labour Government in 1978. It is an utterly vital piece of legislation that addresses everything from survivor benefits to reforms in relation to HMRC and the need to get proper equalisation. To be utterly clear, all parties will benefit from this and there is no loser by reason of the Bill.
It is absolutely to the credit of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West that she has successfully brought the Bill forward on a cross-party basis and navigated its passage. She should be very proud of her work. I am delighted to restate that the Government support the Bill. We continue to support it in this House and will support it in the House of Lords. I wish it every success as it travels on to another place.
Margaret Ferrier
With the leave of the House, I thank the Minister for his support today and throughout each stage of the Bill. I also thank all hon. Members who have spoken and who have intervened on Third Reading including the hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), for Darlington (Peter Gibson) and for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti).
I also take the opportunity to thank the team at the DWP for all their assistance throughout to get to this stage and for their expertise in helping me to understand more of what I was talking about. It has been a privilege to have the opportunity to take a private Member’s Bill through the House, and I encourage all hon. Members to enter the ballot when it comes round again. A private Member’s Bill slot is highly sought after, and it has been a great experience. I look forward to watching the Bill pass through the other place and into law, and I greatly look forward to seeing some of my constituents, and constituents across the UK, finally receive the equalised pension income to which they have been entitled for service since 1990.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Local Authority Boundaries (Referendums) Bill
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Local representation matters. People need to have trust in their local authority, which is charged with acting in their best interest, regardless of which political party may be in charge at local level. Residents need to be reassured that the framework, the model, the structure and the geographical area represented mean that the local authority has the capacity and the capability of acting in their best interest.
My Local Authority Boundaries (Referendums) Bill aims to re-empower communities that feel completely disenfranchised and forgotten about, and that feel their local authority, by the very nature of its structure and the geographical area it represents, is incapable of acting in their best interest. The Bill would give communities the option to have their say in refocusing local councils on being local.
Let us not forget that local authorities perhaps have more important powers on an individual or family’s day-to-day life than any other level of government, whether it be highways, potholes, speeding cameras, housing, planning, schools, children’s services, adult services, bin collection, regeneration, driving economic growth, leisure centres or libraries—the list goes on.
I represent perhaps the best part of the United Kingdom. Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden, Steeton, Riddlesden, East Morton, Worth Valley and my wider constituency are full of passionate people who, quite rightly, are extremely proud of where they live. We have some fantastic businesses, large and small, from manufacturing, engineering and tech businesses to brilliant independent retail businesses, breweries and fantastic tourist attractions, all of which are keen to grow and expand their offering. For far too long the area I represent has felt completely unrepresented and not listened to by our local authority. This Bill aims to change that.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
My hon. Friend will agree that democracy is a process, not a state, and it evolves. Winston Churchill said:
“democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.—[Official Report, 11 November 1947; Vol. 444, c. 207.]
Does my hon. Friend agree with that, and does he agree that local democracy protects the interests of local residents, promotes equality, prevents the abuse of power and creates stability? Does he agree that these are all vital parts of the democracy for which he is fighting?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is intervening on the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), but she should be addressing the Chair.
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, because this Bill aims to reinstall local councils’ power to represent local people and to make sure that the area they represent feels represented so that delivery can happen at a local level. This Bill aims to address those points by creating our very own local council that can be more representative, more engaged and, most importantly, more focused on delivering for our area.
The mechanics of my Bill are simple: it aims to make provision to enable referendums to be held within parliamentary constituency areas to form new local authorities. It places a requirement on the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to lay regulations that would enable two or more parliamentary constituency areas in England to form a new local authority if, when combined, they form a continuous area. A petitioning system will be created to enable local government electors in any constituency area to indicate their support for a referendum to be held on the creation of a new local authority. If 10% or more of the people in those constituency areas give their support for a referendum via the petitioning system, a referendum will be able to be held among all electors within those constituency areas, proposing to form a new local authority area. Of course, once the referendum is held, if a majority of people have signalled that they want a new council to better represent them, the mechanics of setting up a new local authority should be enabled.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
In County Durham, several years ago, we had referendums on whether to abolish our local district councils and move to a unitary council system. One of the issues that we faced was that, despite referendums in which the overwhelming majority of the general public decided to back maintaining district councils, the greater local authority overruled them. Does my hon. Friend’s Bill have enough teeth in it at the moment, or will this be something to consider in Committee in order to ensure that those referendum results are respected by larger local authorities?
Robbie Moore
If I recall, 76% of people across the County Durham area voted in favour of making sure that the local councils were kept. I think the turnout was only 40%—considerably low—but those electors were not listened to. This Bill provides the weight and the teeth necessary to ensure that local electors are listened to and their voice is heard.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can I give my hon. Friend another example? In Christchurch there was a turnout more equivalent to that at a general election, and its people voted 84% in favour of retaining their independence, but were nevertheless run roughshod over by the Government.
Robbie Moore
That is exactly what this Bill hopes to achieve: to instil local democracy in constituency areas that feel unrepresented by a much larger unitary authority, to enable them to have their say, and so that a local council can reflect their views and deliver for them locally, to ensure we can get better services delivered at a local level.
This has been a long-suffering campaign—in fact, I suspect it started before I was even born, probably on the very day on which the borough of Keighley and the urban districts of Baildon, Bingley, Cullingworth, Denholme, Ilkley, Shipley and Silsden were all brought under the control of Bradford. In 1974, the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council was created to administer the newly formed metropolitan borough instigated by the Local Government Act 1972. Ever since that year, when our area’s decision-making powers were stripped and our assets simply handed over to Bradford City Hall, things have never been the same.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I compliment my hon. Friend on the way in which he is presenting his Bill and seeking to deliver for his constituents. Does he agree that it is only right that places such as his constituency have the opportunity to catch up and change those abominable local government structures of the 1970s, as Darlington has been able to enjoy with a unitary authority specifically focused on its own local community?
Robbie Moore
Of course, Darlington is now one of the thriving towns of the north. Keighley absolutely wants to be one, too, but we are stifled by the system we have locally, under which we are completely forgotten about. In my view, Bradford Council disregards the voice of Keighley and Ilkley and we must be heard.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, I fully support him in this and I want my constituency to join his in this new local authority. Does he agree that there is nothing in the Bill that anybody should disagree with, because if Bradford Council is doing such a wonderful job representing his constituents and mine, presumably they will vote against setting up a new local authority when the referendum takes place? It is presumably because Bradford Council knows how badly it is representing our constituents that it is so frightened of this legislation.
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend and neighbour makes a very important point. No one should live in fear of the Bill because it triggers better democracy. Local voices will be heard, so we can ensure that services are delivered better at a local level. I will come on to why this issue is so passionately considered by many of my constituents due to the ongoing failings of Bradford Council.
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way, but I have to disagree with him on one point. Is not the entire point of his Bill that some people should live in fear of his legislation: failing local authorities that are not delivering for local people? That is exactly what he is trying to address for his constituents.
Robbie Moore
I suspect that some will live in fear, but they should not fear the Bill because it is all about ensuring that services are delivered better and that local residents are represented much more efficiently by the people who should be serving them.
Anyone opposed to the Bill will say that bigger is better, but I beg to differ. I am yet to see consistent and guaranteed evidence that the creation of much larger unitary authorities will always provide better representation, better democracy, better deliverability of services, better effectiveness and performance, or indeed better accountability. When it comes to the efficiency, effectiveness and performance of a local council, size is not the driving factor. In fact, if the population and geographical area a local authority represents is too large or covers geographical areas that have little or nothing in common, there is a much greater risk of failure.
Peter Gibson
My hon. Friend is making an important point about size. I would be grateful if he could address the point that size—the total number of people a local authority covers or its geographic size—may not necessarily be the problem; it could be its actual make-up. What assessment has he made of the innovative changes taking place in North Yorkshire just to the north of his constituency, where local government reorganisation is taking place? Does he feel that his constituency probably has a greater affinity to the new North Yorkshire council than it does to Bradford?
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend makes some important points. North Yorkshire is of course within miles of my two principal towns and I sometimes feel there is more allegiance to the areas of North Yorkshire. But we have some passionate people who are dedicated to making sure that services are delivered and local decisions are made as locally as they can be. I am working on a strong campaign with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). We believe our two constituencies will be able to form our own unitary authority, so that we can make sure that decision making happens in our area and is not linked to Bradford Council.
When it comes to local democracy and local representation, which drives the local decision-making process, policy ideas and deliverability of services at a local level, size does matter and matters actually much more. That is why, in my view, there should be no set size for a unitary authority. It should be driven by the geographical area it wants to represent. If the population area is too large or people do not feel fully connected to the area which the local authority wholly represents, the negative implications can be disastrous for driving forward positive change for an area.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. May I refer him to the case of Greater Manchester, a completely artificial political construct? Within each individual borough of Greater Manchester, a 493 square mile clean air charging zone is being inflicted on people by Andy Burnham. This is an example of how, if decision making is taken away from the local population, the Bill will answer that. The people of Bury do not want to be part of Greater Manchester.
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend describes the similarities. A clean air zone is being imposed on hard-working people in my constituency—taxi drivers and construction workers, who are having to pay up to £50 a day to enter Bradford city. It is a completely outrageous tax on hard-working people, and I urge Bradford’s Labour-run council to rethink the proposals and perhaps take a leaf out of Andy Burnham’s book, delay the implementation and consider that. In my view, the strategy will not work in its current format.
When there is disenfranchisement and disengagement, with a council area being too large, the consequences can be devastating. Public trust in councillors and council officers is eroded. Levels of uniform engagement across the whole area become weaker and levels of identification or affinity between the electorate and the council officers become weaker again. Of course, across Bradford district, we see exactly that.
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech and he is being generous in giving way so often. Does he agree that one of the big drivers he and I see in seats such as ours is the levelling-up agenda, which we really want to get on with? Does he share my concern that some local authorities are not interested in delivering that agenda, as he and I are, and that we need local authorities that will work with us, as local MPs, to deliver for our constituents?
Robbie Moore
I totally agree and I will definitely come on to that.
A root cause of so many of these problems is that my constituents feel that they are being used as a cash cow for Bradford, with very little coming back in return. Council tax and business rates are all sent from my constituency to Bradford city hall, with nowhere near the equivalent of those funds coming back to be reinvested in our area. The Keighley and Shipley constituencies generate the highest revenue of tax to Bradford Council through our council tax and business rate payments. Data released by the council finds that such wards as Ilkley, Wharfedale and Craven pay the highest proportion of what is billed, while other wards within Bradford city centre itself pay the least, yet get the highest investment. Even though our constituencies are the largest contributors, we undoubtedly benefit the least, with cash being funnelled into Bradford city centre projects by my constituents, who get no benefit whatsoever. Let us be in no doubt that in Keighley we have some huge problems and some huge deprived areas, and we need more local support from our local authority.
Let me come on the point that my hon. Friend made, which is absolutely to do with levelling up. Clearly, parts of my constituency have been forgotten about at a local level and left behind, particularly by my local authority, which should have given much more attention to them over the years. It has taken this Conservative Government to step in and, through the towns fund, from which we are gaining £33.6 million—it is going to be invested in some great projects—to drive and kick-start that economic regeneration.
It has to be noted that, despite the £33.6 million coming in to support Keighley-based projects, our Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities gave every local authority the opportunity to apply for a levelling-up fund—up to £20 million. That would have provided a greater boost; it would have been in addition to the £33.6 million that this Conservative Government had already put down for my constituency. But what did Bradford’s Labour-run council do in terms of that application process? It failed even to apply for up to £20 million to come into my town of Keighley. That is a disgrace and it is exactly why this Bill is so important. It will finally give my residents the opportunity to have a say in driving forward economic prosperity for our area.
Let us consider a very local project: the Silsden to Steeton bridge, which connects those places and goes over a very busy dual carriageway. My predecessor, Kris Hopkins, when he was the MP, secured £700,000 from the Conservative Government to carry out an economic feasibility study. That money was granted way back in 2015, but it took until the beginning of last year for that study to be completed by Bradford council and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and to produce a cost to build the bridge of £3.6 million. That increased to £5.5 million, and at the beginning of this year Bradford Council came out with an estimate of more than £10 million to deliver the bridge. I only hope that this is not Bradford’s Labour-run council kicking the project into the long grass so that my constituents do not benefit from a pedestrian bridge connecting Silsden and Steeton.
Then we come to the challenges with the planning process. Many of my constituents are extremely frustrated at the time it takes for planning to proceed through the system. I shall use one example. Many hard-working businesses in Keighley want to drive economic growth and build light industrial units. I reference one fairly small project. Back in 2018, a planning application went in for just off the Hard Ings roundabout, to build, I think, eight light industrial units. The application was submitted in 2018, but it took until the year of the pandemic for the application to be approved. During the year of the pandemic, my constituent was successful in gaining planning consent, cracked on, got them built and let the units so that hard-working businesses could crack on and thrive. Had Bradford Council cracked on with that planning application, those business units could have been built and those businesses could have got in and thrived much quicker. Labour-run Bradford Council continued to fail on all levels to support my constituents and hard-working businesses. This Bill gives my constituents the opportunity to have their say.
It does not stop there. Throughout the pandemic, the Government have supported many hard-working independent businesses right across my constituency. Take the example of the additional restrictions grant: a discretionary grant given to local authorities so that they could make the best decision on how to support businesses. Equilibrium, a beauty business in Silsden—this is just one example—struggled time and again to get hold of additional funding; the business had been impacted by the pandemic. The owner then found out that her counterparts in the beauty sector in other local authorities had managed to get hold of the additional restrictions grant. Her business, however, was denied the possibility of even submitting an application, until I pressed the case time and again with the chief executive and leader of Bradford Council.
Some people argue that smaller local authorities are much less efficient at delivering Government support. I do not agree at all. Craven District Council, just next to me, covers a population of about 70,000 to 80,000. It delivered its business grants during the covid pandemic far quicker than Bradford Council. Calderdale, on the other side of my constituency, with a population of around 200,000, delivered its business grants far quicker than Bradford Council. It would be far better to form a new local authority that was much more unified with the area it represents.
I turn to housing. Like all local authorities, our local authority has been charged with putting together a new local plan, which relates to the housing strategy for the next 15 years from 2023. Bradford Council’s proposals see up to 3,000 new houses being built across my local area on greenfield land. Up to 75 houses were proposed in Addingham’s neighbourhood development plan, which it has just completed after long consultations with Bradford Council. Now Bradford Council wants to build 181 houses there. Some 314 houses are proposed for Ilkley, mostly on greenbelt land. There is a proposal for 191 new houses in Riddlesden, mostly on greenbelt land. The Worth valley: 343 new houses, mostly on greenbelt land. In Silsden, 580 new houses are proposed—again, mostly on greenfield and greenbelt land. That will all have a huge impact on local services, schools, health services and road networks. Most of those businesses, schools and GP services have not even been consulted as part of the local plan.
These are not the only instances in which my residents are being ignored. About two years ago, many residents along Moss Carr Road in Long Lee submitted a village green application to try to protect a key greenfield site just outside Long Lee. Bradford Council did not even progress the application, blaming that on its having got lost within its system. Now we find that the housing strategy in Bradford Council’s local plan has identified that very field for house building.
One of the most haunting issues that has had an impact on my constituency is child sexual exploitation. Children’s services are in a dire state in Bradford. Across the district, there are exceptional problems that mark my area out from the rest of the country. Children’s services are perhaps the most important services that a local authority can provide, but Bradford Council’s children’s services have failed vulnerable children for far too long. Only last month, we had a damning Government report on Bradford Council’s children’s services, which only went to show what we have all known for a long time—children in our district are not protected by those with a responsibility for doing so, and that has led to tragic circumstances throughout our area. The council has not acted on problems that have been going on for far too long.
Only in July last year, a limited 50-page review was released, which identified five children who had been sexually abused within the Bradford district over the last 20 years. It confirmed that children remain at risk in Bradford and an unknown number of perpetrators remain unchallenged. Perhaps more damningly, the report concluded that failures had been identified within Bradford Council’s social services and children’s services department.
I am pleased to say that, earlier this year, the Conservative Government stepped in and stripped Bradford Council of its children’s services so that a new trust structure could be set up. My constituents are deeply concerned by the lack of trust in public organisations that should be there to protect them. I am pleased that the Government have stepped in to try to provide some reassurance, so that vulnerable children in my constituency can be looked after, and that is before I start talking about one of the darker issues of child sexual exploitation and my campaign to trigger a full Rotherham-style inquiry into child sexual exploitation across the district. I only hope that the leader of Bradford Council is listening to this debate and that our new Mayor, Tracy Brabin, is also listening, so that they get behind my calls for a full inquiry. If we continue to um and ah around this issue and fail to take action, issues will only get worse.
What are the likely next steps for the Bill? It would give my constituents a chance of a new start with a new local authority. Currently, powers are limited, in that the Government are unable to make changes to local authorities unless they are recommended to do so by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. While measures remain in place for a council to request the commission to undertake a boundary review, there is nothing to allow our constituents to make the decision for themselves. The Bill would provide that option. Importantly, it would do it in a way that ensures that any newly formed local authority would be financially viable and would leave the original local authority also viable.
The Bill would put new measures in place to ensure that local people have a say on who represents them, the very nature of the council and the geographical area in which its services can be delivered more efficiently. It is only right that, if a majority of people in specific constituencies are in favour of forming a new unitary authority, they have the opportunity to do so. Not only would that benefit my constituents in Keighley and Ilkley, but it would be welcomed—according to comments we have heard across the House—by many other people.
My Bill aims to re-empower communities who feel disenfranchised, forgotten and that their local authority, by its very nature, structure and the geographical area it represents, is incapable of acting in their interests. It is high time that we let people have their say on this very issue, and I will not stop fighting until my constituents can have a better local authority that is better engaged on their priorities and able to deliver for them, because my constituents deserve much better than what they currently get from Labour-run Bradford Council.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore). As he knows, I fully support him on this Bill, and I thought he set out the case fantastically well. I should say that the people of Keighley and Ilkley are very lucky to have him representing them. He is a fantastic Member of Parliament both in this place and locally, and I very much trust he will be for many years to come.
Both my hon. Friend and I stood at the last election on a promise that we would endeavour to break our constituencies away from Bradford Council. He set out many of the reasons why Bradford Council is failing. Actually, it is failing not just our constituents, but the people of Bradford. However, they have their own Members of Parliament to represent them, and it is our duty to represent our constituents. It is not just that Bradford Council is failing and incompetent, although it is. It is worse than that, as far as I am concerned: it is actually that it does not care about our constituents; it just cares about its Bradford heartlands. If you do not mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will give a couple of examples to illustrate why that is the case, should anybody deny it. There are many examples I could give, but I am going to give two that I think set out the case quite clearly.
Bradford Council is of course always strapped for cash, if we listen to it, and my hon. Friend made a very good point about council tax income, which I will come on to a bit later. It announced a few years ago that it was going to close the swimming pool in Bingley in my constituency, which was a very popular and well-used facility that was used by lots of the schoolchildren we are trying to encourage to do more sport. Of course, Bradford Council’s reason is always that it has not got enough money, and some people may have some sympathy with that. Unfortunately, at the same time as it made the announcement about closing Bingley swimming pool, it announced that it was going to build five brand-new swimming pools in other parts of the Bradford district—so much for lack of resources being the issue. It was quite blatantly because it wanted to put them in its Labour heartlands, and it did not really care about people in Bingley.
However, I have a better, ongoing example. One thing in Bradford Council’s Airedale masterplan from years ago—from about the time I became the local MP, if not before—was to introduce a Shipley eastern bypass. It was recommended by the consultants Arup, who were paid by Bradford Council to come up with this masterplan. It recommended a Shipley eastern bypass, which I wholly agree with and have been campaigning for ever since. After the then Secretary of State for Transport came to see with his own eyes the issues that would be resolved by a Shipley eastern bypass, in early 2019 the Government gave Bradford Council hundreds of thousands of pounds to conduct a feasibility study of this proposal—to see how much it would cost, where it would go and all the rest of it.
Bradford Council was given this money, and it agreed that it would produce the feasibility study by the autumn of 2019. The autumn of 2019 came and went, and no feasibility study was produced by Bradford Council. Then it was going to be the spring of 2020, but that came and went, and there was no feasibility study. We are now almost in March 2022, and Bradford Council still has not completed the feasibility study into the Shipley eastern bypass, and then it has the brass neck to complain that it does not get infrastructure investment into the Bradford district. The Government are trying to facilitate this, and it cannot even do the small bit of the jigsaw that it has to put in place. If that does not demonstrate beyond any doubt that Bradford Council does not care about infrastructure in my constituency, I do not know what would. It would not surprise me if it had barely started it. It clearly does not want to do the project because it would largely benefit the people of my constituency, so it is of zero interest. I think that is pretty shocking, to be perfectly honest.
Bradford Council has not completed a feasibility study, which is either because it is wholly incompetent or because it does not care about my constituents. Those are the only two explanations that anyone can offer. I am happy for it to explain which one it is—it can choose. It can make a public statement about that. I do not care which one it is, but it is clearly one or the other. That proves beyond any doubt in my mind that it really does not care about my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley rightly feels the same about his constituency.
The Bradford area is not suited to being so big—it is too big. I will give a simple explanation of why it does not work. People and the local media often ask me what I am doing for Bradford. As it happens, I do quite a lot, including helping to secure millions of pounds to help the old Odeon in Bradford become a live music venue—without that Government support, that project would not have been viable—and, along with colleagues in Bradford, helping to save the National Media Museum, which was threatened with closure. But, the thing is, no one ever asks Bradford MPs what they are doing for Shipley or Keighley—it is always a one-way street. That goes to show how this area does not work for anybody. We are thrown in as if we are part of Bradford when we have our own needs—and frankly, for my constituents, decision making in Bradford is just as remote as decision making in Whitehall.
My hon. Friend gave some good examples of Bradford Council’s failures. He mentioned child sexual exploitation and how we need a Rotherham-style inquiry to get to the bottom of that, but it continually refuses to agree to that because it is more concerned with trying to protect its reputation than with those children who have been put in a terrible situation. He also mentioned how the Government took children’s services away from the council because it had been failing so badly. We have had some terrible cases. The awful murder of Star Hobson, which happened in my hon. Friend’s constituency, uncovered huge failings by Bradford Council, which had been made well aware of the case.
I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the worst aspects of Bradford Council for my constituents relates to building on the green belt, which affects his constituents just as it does mine. That also goes to show how useless the council is. It is always banging on about regenerating Bradford and how important that is for the district—it does not talk much about regenerating Keighley or Shipley—and then it builds hundreds of houses on the green belt in Wharfedale in my constituency. Of course, people in Wharfedale do not shop in Bradford because it is not easy for them to get to Bradford; they get on the train and go to Leeds. Bradford Council’s housing policy is actually regenerating Leeds rather than Bradford.
Bradford Council does not build houses in places where people would want to work and shop in Bradford. It does not have a joined-up policy to help itself; it is just a numbers exercise for the council, with it wanting to build as many houses as it can in desirable areas of our constituencies to tick a box without any thought about our constituents or even how Bradford might be helped. I am almost certain that a local authority made up only of our two constituencies would not have agreed to some of the housing developments that Bradford Council has imposed on my constituents against their wishes. It will not rest until it has concreted over every last bit of green-belt land in my constituency, which is something that I try to stop.
My hon. Friend mentioned how his constituency has been excluded from the levelling-up fund. I have the same story to tell. We might think that a council that has been griping for years that it has not had enough money to do anything would have had lots of projects ready to go—those that it had wanted to do for years and years. Bingley is the second largest place in my constituency. I have asked Bradford Council to develop a levelling-up fund bid for Bingley. Given how many years Bingley has been under the control of Bradford Council, one would have thought it would have something on the shelf—“If we got £20 million for Bingley, this is what we’d do.” The Government announced a levelling-up fund—“Put your bids in.” Bradford Council said, “Can we have one for Bingley?” and it was “Oh no. We haven’t got anything ready for that. We can’t. We’ll have to start working on it.” Start working on it! They had not even thought about how they might regenerate Bingley.
Indeed, they had thought about it so little that they were not even in a position to put in a bid when the Government are handing out money. They are having to start working out what they might do to regenerate Bingley. We missed the first round of bidding, putting at risk whether we may or may not get anything from a future bid. But do not worry, Madam Deputy Speaker, a bid for Bradford West was ready to go in the first round, and I am sure my constituents were hugely reassured by that.
Robbie Moore
Does my hon. Friend agree it is shocking that when this Conservative Government come along and say, “You can apply for up to £20 million for the Shipley constituency and £20 million for the Keighley constituency”, there was not even an application for up to £40 million that could have come in to revitalise the Aire valley corridor? It was not even applied for.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is frustrating for those of us who are trying to do the best for our local area to have a local authority that has all the power in the area but does not do its bit. It is telling that the biggest investments we have had recently in the towns fund for Shipley and Keighley have both come from the Government, and not from the Labour council that has had years to try to regenerate the town centres but has not done anything about it. That is why the Bill is so important to me and my constituents, and they will welcome it.
Time is against us, and I accept that the Minister may not be able to accept the Bill today. I hope, however, that she will commit to holding further discussions with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley to see how we can progress the grave injustice that our constituents are facing, and see what can be done to ensure they are properly represented at local level. Surely local government should be all about being local—indeed, as local as possible. What on earth is the point of it if it is so big in area that people feel no affinity to the local government area that is governing them? It is completely pointless. We must make local government much more local again.
The Bill is a perfect way of going about that. It would mean that our two constituencies would be able to petition to set up a new local authority. If the majority of my constituents, and those of my hon. Friend, wanted that to happen, it would happen. Who can be against that form of local democracy and ensuring that we have a local authority that our constituents want? Does any political party want to oppose that principle? I cannot think they would want to face their electorate by saying that they are opposed to that principle, but we will be delighted to hear what the Labour party says about whether it favours that kind of local democracy. My constituents do not want to be part of Bradford Council, and neither do those of my hon. Friend.
I am prepared to be more generous than my hon. Friend, and I hope the Minister will also take this into consideration. Under the Bill—I think my hon. Friend is right to do this in principle—if a majority of voters in those two constituencies wanted to break away and set up their own local authority, the Government would implement that. I am prepared to make a generous offer to go further. I am happy to have a referendum in the whole Bradford district about whether we should break away from Bradford Council. It would mean that the Bradford part of that district would have the majority of people in it, but I am happy to take my chances on that. People might say, “Well of course if you break away that will affect Bradford”, but I am happy for everyone to have a vote in that referendum. Let’s go for it. I will make that generous offer. Who could possibly disagree with that? I hope that the Government will look at what can be done to ensure that local government is genuinely local, so that my constituents are no longer short-changed by the appalling Bradford Council, which is not only incompetent but does not really care about my constituents or those of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley.
I commend my hon. Friend for keeping to his promise at the last election to do whatever he could to ensure that our constituencies break away from the horror of Bradford Council and set up our own local authority. This would be a viable local authority—it would be exactly the same size as neighbouring Calderdale Council, so nobody could say that it was not viable. I therefore hope the Government will take steps to ensure that my constituents and his can be properly looked after and feel represented at a local democracy level, because they are certainly not at the moment. It is an absolute pleasure to be the parliamentary neighbour of my hon. Friend, who is a superb representative of his constituents. I stand shoulder to shoulder with him on this Bill, and we will not give in. We will keep up this fight until we get justice for our constituents.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak for the third time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) on bringing this Bill forward for its Second Reading today. He has been a passionate campaigner on this issue since his election in 2019 and has found common cause with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who has long called for the separation of the Shipley constituency from Bradford Metropolitan District Council. Both constituencies continue to suffer from the misery of the 1970s local government reorganisation.
I was delighted to learn that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley did not secure his place for a private Member’s Bill in the usual way through the ballot; nor indeed did he present a ten-minute rule Bill. Rather, he used the very rare method of camping out on a certain date outside the Table Office—a lesson to us all in commitment to the cause. He is a true champion for Keighley and Ilkley, fighting hard to improve the lives of his constituents. I could draw the House’s attention to his many local campaigns and successes, such as the rebuilding of Airedale Hospital, protecting green space on North Street in Keighley or the town deal that he helped to secure for Keighley. However, I think that his campaign to keep Haworth post office open has been particularly moving, to the extent that I felt compelled to sign up myself.
This Bill is further testament to my hon. Friend’s commitment to campaigning and his drive and energy to champion his constituency, stand up for the needs of his constituents and ensure that their concerns are heard here. I commend him for that. He has set out a positive and robust argument in favour of his Bill and his desire for the Keighley and Shipley constituencies to break away from the horrors of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. I understand that the Keighley and Shipley constituencies generate the highest revenues for Bradford Council through their council tax payments. However, from what we have heard today, it is clear that Bradford Council is not delivering for the people of these two constituencies. My hon. Friend has also made a strong and compelling case, setting out the failings of Bradford Council.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) provide by far the highest amount of council tax income for Bradford Council, but it is not just that; it is the fact that we actually pay our council tax in our areas. In Wharfedale, 99.2% of council tax income is collected, whereas the last year’s figures that I have available show that City ward collected only 79% of its council tax. Indeed, £12 million of council tax income goes uncollected each year by Bradford Council, despite its pleading poverty.
Peter Gibson
I am grateful for that intervention, which gives a shining example of the horrors of Bradford Council and many others across the country in failing to collect council tax, which is shameful behaviour.
We have all been horrified by the stories that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley shared about children and young people’s services in Bradford Council. In my view, the Government were absolutely right to strip the council of control over its children’s services department this year. No vulnerable child or young adult should be failed by those whose role is to protect them, and I sincerely hope that childhood services in Bradford can turn a corner.
In my constituency, many residents will no doubt be sympathetic to my hon. Friends’ desire for Keighley and Shipley to break away from Bradford District Council. Darlington was a non-metropolitan district of Durham County Council until, on 1 April 1997, the borough of Darlington absorbed the powers of the county council to become a unitary authority, the third smallest in the country, and Darlington Borough Council was formed. Darlington residents felt forgotten and abandoned by Durham County Council, and, given what we have heard today, I have no doubt that that is exactly how the residents of Keighley and Shipley feel about Bradford Council. In Darlington, we also know a lot about how ineffective Labour-run administrations can be, especially when they rest on their laurels and take our communities for granted.
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The problem is not just that these local authorities are not delivering, but that they are not listening. In my constituency, the Government, through the towns fund, has delivered money for a new health and wellbeing hub, which we want to support because we need a health and wellbeing hub in the centre of Keighley. However, the local authority is determined to build it on a green space in the centre, in North Street, despite the voice of Keighley not wanting it to be built there. This should not be an either/or choice; it should be possible to deliver a health and wellbeing hub while also keeping the green space. That example illustrates that the failure of some of these Labour-run authorities is not listening to what local people want.
Peter Gibson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Be it the non-collection of council tax or the failure to listen to communities, we see the failings of Labour-led local authorities up and down the country. Darlington Borough Council now works hard to improve the lives of my constituents, and I want to take this opportunity to praise that Conservative-led council for the hard work it has done since we wrested power from the ineffective Labour administration in 2019. It is hugely important for people to feel that they are being properly represented by their local councils, and there is clearly a demand and need for that in Keighley and Shipley.
However, my hon. Friend’s Bill leaves a number of questions about how the process that it sets out would actually work. As I understand it, the Bill would allow two or more parliamentary constituencies to form a new authority following a referendum, but what would be the impact of the current parliamentary boundary changes if Keighley and Shipley were to do that? Those constituencies could potentially take in more of the other parts of Bradford than they are leaving behind, subject to a boundary commission. What would happen to the respective police and crime commissioner positions? What would happen to the respective police and ambulance services?
Let us take the example of Darlington. I do not represent all the borough council wards in Parliament; my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) also represents a number of wards. Why should a new local authority form around two or more constituencies when we know that those constituency boundaries could potentially change following a boundary commission review?
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley will no doubt have noted the recent changes to local government just to the north of my constituency in North Yorkshire, with the election of a new unitary council to replace the eight councils that were established there in the 1970s. There is also the prospect of a combined authority to cover York and North Yorkshire.
Philip Davies
I am sure my hon. Friend accepts that parliamentary boundaries change on a regular basis, and that that does not necessitate a change in local authority boundaries. In many cases, Members of Parliament have to represent constituencies that cover different local authorities. The fact that parliamentary boundaries may or may not change in the future will have absolutely no bearing on the authority once it has been established.
Peter Gibson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I simply raised the point for consideration in the discussion of this Bill.
As I have already mentioned, the new unitary authority that is being established in North Yorkshire already contains many historic parts of the old west riding of Yorkshire, such as Skipton, Settle, Selby, Harrogate and Ripon, and I can see no reason why the great West Yorkshire towns of Ilkley, Shipley and Keighley could not explore a move into the new North Yorkshire council area, with which they could have much more affinity.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley for the intentions of his Bill. He continues to stand up for the interests of his constituents, and that cannot be faulted. Unfortunately, though, I have concluded that I will not be supporting his Bill today. Bradford Metropolitan District Council clearly needs to listen more closely to the needs of residents of the Keighley and Shipley constituencies, and I hope that this debate today will make that clear to the council and it gets the message that it needs to represent fully all residents of the council area.
I cannot support this Bill today, but I wish my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley and for Shipley every success in holding Bradford Metropolitan District Council to account for the dreadful horrors and in ensuring that the concerns and needs of their constituents are properly heard, so that the council no longer ignores places such Shipley, Keighley and Ilkley.
The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) on securing a place in the ballot for this private Member’s Bill on introducing referendums into the process of local government boundary reviews. He, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) have both raised, very passionately, a number of serious issues around the service that they are receiving from Bradford Council. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for his contribution.
The Government remain committed to their policy that local government reorganisation, whether it involves boundary or unitary changes, should be locally led. I commit to working with my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Keighley as requested on the various issues that they have raised.
The Bill makes provision for certain processes to be followed where boundary changes are being sought, particularly where the boundary change would result in an area being taken out of an existing local government area and the creation of a wholly new area with a wholly new council.
Philip Davies
I absolutely understand why the Government would not wish to interfere in bringing forward a top-down reorganisation of local authorities; that would be inappropriate, and I understand why they would be reluctant to do that. Does the Minister accept though that the beauty of my hon. Friend’s Bill is that, in the Government’s stated position of changes being locally led, nothing indicates something more locally led than a local referendum, where all the people have a chance to vote to say where they want to be represented? Does she agree that this Bill fulfils that Government policy of locally led changes?
Kemi Badenoch
Absolutely; it does meet that locally led test, but that is not the only test that we would be applying.
The processes that Parliament has established for changing a local government boundary are centred on the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, so that is another step that would be required. We all know that a boundary change can be effected only if it is recommended by that commission. The issue at the moment, which is why we cannot accept this Bill in the way that it has been drafted, is that it would cut across those processes.
The long title of the Bill is:
“A Bill to make provision to enable parliamentary constituency areas to form new unitary local authority areas if agreed by referendum; to make provision for such referendums; and for connected purposes.”
The Bill would be very sweeping indeed. We would be concerned about a number of aspects of this approach.
First, parliamentary constituencies may not be a sound basis for establishing the right level of service delivery—that must be a consideration. We also need to make sure that the boundaries can be established only where there is a safeguard against anything that might lose the confidence of the local democracy. That is definitely not the case here, but a referendum could be promoted by some politicians of a particular party and lead to the creation of councils primarily on a party political basis. As the Bill is drafted, there is no prevention mechanism to stop something like that from happening.
Philip Davies
I appreciate that time is running out, so may I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for agreeing to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley to discuss how we might bring forward a Bill that satisfies our requirements and those of the Government? That will be very helpful and I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that she is prepared to do that.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend. He and I will be able to work together on this issue with our hon. Friend the Member for Keighley—
Business without Debate
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March.
DIGITALLY ALTERED BODY IMAGES BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March.
PRISONS (VIOLENCE) BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March.
PLANNING AND LOCAL REPRESENTATION BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March.
PEDICABS (LONDON) BILL
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (19 November), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March.
ABUSE OF PUBLIC-FACING WORKERS (OFFENCES) BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 18 March.
SCHOOLS AND EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS (ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPENING DURING EMERGENCIES) BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March.
MEDICAL CANNABIS (ACCESS) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (10 December), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March.
PRIME MINISTER (ACCOUNTABILITY TO HOUSE OF COMMONS) BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 11 March.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING (CHILD PROTECTION) BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 4 March.
PRIME MINISTER (TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT) BILL
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (14 January), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE COMMISSION BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March.
BBC LICENCE FEE (ABOLITION) BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March.
ELECTORAL COMMISSION (ABOLITION) BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March.
GENERAL ELECTION (LEADERS’ DEBATES) BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
HOSPITALS (PARKING CHARGES AND BUSINESS RATES) BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
ASYLUM SEEKERS (RETURN TO SAFE COUNTRIES) BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CO-FUNDING AND CO-PAYMENT BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
PLASTICS (WET WIPES) BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
MOBILE HOMES ACT 1983 (AMENDMENT) BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
FLOODING (PREVENTION AND INSURANCE) BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
CLIMATE CHANGE BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
COPYRIGHT (RIGHTS AND REMUNERATION OF MUSICIANS, ETC.) BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
NHS ENGLAND (ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT) BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
PUBLIC HEALTH (CONTROL OF DISEASE) ACT 1984 (AMENDMENT) BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
CARAVAN SITES BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
PUBLIC SECTOR EXIT PAYMENTS (LIMITATION) BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION (OFFENCES) BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
BBC LICENCE FEE NON-PAYMENT (DECRIMINALISATION FOR OVER-75S) BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
GREEN BELT (PROTECTION) BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
COVID-19 VACCINE DAMAGE BILL
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Housing Disrepair
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I will speak this afternoon about the truly terrible housing conditions that have been endured for too long by the residents of Evelyn Court on Amherst Road in my constituency. This block is run and managed by the Industrial Dwellings Society housing association. One can see that it would have once been a very nice estate and a pleasant place to live, but when I visited it several times recently and residents kindly invited me into their flats, I was shocked by what I saw. Let me say straightaway that the tenants of all the flats I visited had made every effort to keep them nicely, which made it even more heartbreaking that their flats were disfigured by chronic disrepair problems that were not in their power to deal with and about which the Industrial Dwellings Society housing association had let them down time after time when it had promised to fix things.
I saw dreadful mould covering walls, damp, water leaking in and dampness rising from the floor. In addition, tenants told me about blockages in their drainage system and insect infestations. Among the insects that they had had to deal with in large numbers were ants, spiders and slugs. Worst of all were the health problems that the tenants and their children were enduring because of the damp and mould. I was told about nausea, coughs, colds and chronic asthma. The conditions in Evelyn Court are completely unacceptable and the Industrial Dwellings Society should be ashamed of itself for leaving its tenants in that state.
The Industrial Dwellings Society was set up in 1885 by a group of Jewish philanthropists and businessmen who wanted to relieve overcrowding in the east end of London. If they could see the dreadful conditions that, in 2022, their organisation is housing eastenders in, they would be shocked. Those problems are not confined to Evelyn Court, however: the private sector as a whole has the worst housing disrepair and more than 1.1 million homes in the sector—fully one quarter—do not meet the decent homes standard.
I also deal with terrible housing disrepair problems elsewhere in the public sector. Among the cases that I am currently dealing with is an L&Q housing association tenant who is suffering from a leaking roof, rising damp, slugs, an infestation of drain flies, continually blocked drains, sewage spilling out into the garden and emerging from the sink, and a shower that has been broken for three years. Another L&Q tenant who I and my staff are trying to help is living in a flat with no working toilet, no gas, a leaking roof and an insect infestation.
We are also trying to help a Hackney Council tenant who has been without gas and hot water since 15 December and whose bathroom is in a state of disrepair. A further Hackney Council tenant is in a property with severe mould and raw sewage outside her flat from a drain that has been blocked for six months. That is just a sample of the scores of new housing disrepair cases that I deal with every month.
The Minister must be wondering why housing disrepair is so endemic. There are several reasons. There is a lack of funding from the Government generally and they, quite correctly, put the responsibility for fire safety and net zero carbon emissions on to housing associations. I support those policies and that is the right thing to do, but they fail to fund those issues properly. It would take £15 billion to deal with fire safety issues in London alone.
Another issue is that housing associations—many of them, such as the Industrial Dwellings Society, set up more than a century ago with every intention of helping local people—no longer have a strong local presence. Tenants who need repairs often have to contact call centres situated far away in cities such as Birmingham and Liverpool. The people in these call centres do not know the estate or the individuals, and they often cannot grasp the problems they are trying to explain.
The regulators, including the Regulator of Social Housing and the housing ombudsman, are the Government’s responsibility, but they do not have sufficient powers. They can only deal with the process, not individual cases, and they are not able to impose fines big enough to be a real deterrent.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities promised a White Paper on this sector in autumn 2021, and it has still not appeared—it is now promised for 2022. Will the Minister commit the Government to producing the White Paper on this important sector in 2022?
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires private sector landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of a tenancy and throughout. Bearing in mind that 1.1 million homes in the private sector do not meet the decent homes standard, how many cases have been brought under this Act? How many of those cases have been successful? Finally, how much money has been allocated to local authorities to enforce the decent homes standards?
I would not like to conclude this speech without applauding the London Renters Union, which has given so much support to the tenants of Evelyn Court. Furthermore, the London Renters Union, across London, has not only helped tenants but empowered them. The tenants of Evelyn Court are not asking for the world. They want the Industrial Dwellings Society to keep its promise of a 24-hour call out, they want it to communicate with them properly and, above all, they want it to do something permanent about the terrible disrepair in Evelyn Court.
As a Member of Parliament for more than 30 years, one of the biggest parts of my case load is housing and housing disrepair. I cannot stress enough to Ministers the misery, depression and anxiety that long-running housing disrepair causes to tenants. The Government have a role to play in ensuring that tenants have disrepair addressed according to existing legislation and according to the needs of tenants. If the Government cannot meet the needs of tenants in these dreadful conditions, how much do they really care about tenants?
I ask the Minister to look into the issues I have raised and to take action for the tenants of Evelyn Court.
The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on securing this debate, and I thank her for raising this subject on behalf of her constituents. She is absolutely right to raise the issue of housing disrepair at Evelyn Court on Amhurst Road, and the conditions she describes are unacceptable.
The Government are committed to creating a fair and just housing system that works for everyone, and nowhere is the need to improve quality more urgent than in housing. The right hon. Lady asked several questions that I will address in my response. I do not have figures to hand on the number of cases brought under legislation, but I am sure officials can write to her with an answer.
Good-quality housing can help to improve a wide range of outcomes, including better health, quality of life, educational attainment, community cohesion, labour mobility and carbon emissions. There are significant societal impacts of poor-quality homes—we know that the Building Research Establishment recently estimated that poor-quality homes cost the NHS £1.4 billion a year and research funded by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities estimates that the total annual cost to society is £18.6 billion.
We have made considerable progress on housing quality. It has improved significantly since 2009. Then, 30% or 6.7 million homes were non-decent. In 2020, that had fallen to 4 million or 16%. Despite that progress, we recognise there is still more to do. Poor-quality housing is not spread evenly by tenure or region. Some 13% of social rented sector homes are currently non-decent. The highest rates of non-decent social housing are in the south-west, at a rate of 16.9%, and the situation is worse in the private rented sector, which has a 21% rate of non-decent homes, with Yorkshire and the Humber having the highest percentage of non-decency at 33.7%.
The Government want to take action and I will let the right hon. Lady know what we are doing. The levelling-up White Paper outlined a set of ambitious missions to level up the country and support communities. The Government set the ambition to halve the number of non-decent rented homes by 2030, with the biggest improvements in the lowest-performing areas. That means we will bring about 800,000 homes up to a decent standard across both the private and social rented sectors, and that will support the most vulnerable in society.
We recognise the issues that the right hon. Lady raised. She talked about the White Paper. That is why we are implementing the commitments in the social housing White Paper, which will drive up the quality of housing stock and housing services, and improve the lives of social housing residents in England. That work is critical to meeting our ambition to halve the number of non-decent rented homes by 2030, with the biggest improvements in the lowest-performing areas as part of our levelling-up agenda.
The social housing White Paper measures will transform social housing regulation and redress, creating proactive consumer regulation and rebalancing the relationship between landlord and tenant. We will introduce legislation to give the regulator of social housing stronger powers to drive up consumer standards, with regular inspections of the largest landlords. We will give the regulator greater enforcement powers to tackle failing landlords, including unlimited fines for the worst offenders and powers to complete emergency repairs where needed. Landlords will be required to report on new tenant satisfaction measures that tenants and the regulator will be able to use to see how a landlord is performing.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the housing ombudsman. We have already strengthened the housing ombudsman’s powers to ensure that when residents make a complaint, landlords take quick and effective action to put things right. In October last year, the housing ombudsman published its “Spotlight on: Damp and Mould” report, which made 26 recommendations on how landlords can improve services for residents based on learning from hundreds of investigations across 142 landlords and more than 500 responses to its call for evidence. In February and March 2021, the Department delivered on its commitment in the White Paper to run a campaign to raise awareness of, and confidence in, the social housing complaint-making process. To build on the success of that campaign, we are running a second four-to-six week campaign, which commenced this week on 21 February. The campaign consists of adverts on social media and radio, which guide residents on how to make things right.
We will publish a White Paper in the spring, setting out how we will support those in the private rented sector, including ending section 21 evictions and giving all tenants a strong right to redress. The White Paper will explore new standards for rented homes, introducing a national landlord register and taking tough action against rogue landlords. We will also review the decent homes standard to make sure it is fit for the present day and applies across all rented tenures.
We will also address poor energy efficiency by targeting retrofit funding at the worst performing homes and those least able to pay. The £2.2 billion funding through the home upgrade grant, social housing decarbonisation fund and boiler upgrade scheme will help to improve energy efficiency and lower energy bills. The future homes standard and future building standards will also ensure that new homes and buildings reach much higher energy efficiency standards. Through the Building Safety Bill, we will also legislate for the new homes ombudsman to support the purchases of new build homes when things go wrong.
I close by thanking the right hon. Lady again for securing today’s debate and speaking so passionately on behalf of her constituents. I hope the residents of Evelyn Court know that we really do care about this issue. I reiterate that we are committed to ensuring that housing works for everyone. The Government understand the scale of the challenge that we face, which is why the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has set those ambitious missions to halve the number of rented homes that fail to meet the decent homes standard across both the social rented and private sectors.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Online Safety
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)
The Government recognise the impact that online abuse, including anonymous abuse, has on people and their online experience. Too many people experience online abuse and protecting users is a priority for this Government.
The Online Safety Bill introduces vital new protections from online abuse. The legislation will require all companies in scope to manage the risk of criminal abuse effectively, including anonymous abuse, on user-to-user services. Companies will need to assess the functionality of anonymous and pseudonymous profiles and the role they play in allowing illegal abuse and mitigate the risk associated with such functionality.
All services likely to be accessed by children will also have to put in place appropriate measures to protect children from cyber-bullying and other forms of abuse, whether anonymous or not.
Category 1 companies—those which are high risk and high reach—will also have to set out clearly what abusive content they accept on their platform for adults and have effective systems in place to enforce their terms and conditions.
The Government recognise concerns that have been raised by the Joint Committee during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, alongside the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the Petitions Committee and others regarding the impact of online abuse and ensuring users have more control over whom they interact with online, while protecting the right of individuals to be anonymous if they choose. We thank the committees and campaigners for their scrutiny of the Online Safety Bill.
As a result, I am pleased to announce that we will strengthen the duties in the Online Safety Bill by adding two new additional duties on category 1 companies to provide adults with optional user verification and user empowerment tools.
The user verification duty will require category 1 companies to provide their adult users with an option to verify their identity. Ofcom will set out in guidance how companies can fulfil this new duty and the verification options companies could use. In developing this guidance, Ofcom must ensure that the possible verification measures are accessible to vulnerable users and consult the Information Commissioner, as well as vulnerable adult users and technical experts.
The user empowerment tools duty will require category 1 companies to provide tools to give adults more control over whom they interact with and the legal content they see. Under the proposed new duty, for harmful content that category 1 companies do allow, they would have to provide users with the tools to control what types of harmful content they see. This could include, for example, content on the discussion of self-harm recovery which may be tolerated on a category 1 service but which a particular user may not want to see.
In addition to the existing provisions in the Bill, the new duties will help provide robust protections for adults, including vulnerable adults, while protecting freedom of expression online.
[HCWS640]
UN Negotiations: Ocean Biodiversity
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
My noble Friend the Minister for the Pacific and the International Environment (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) has made the following written ministerial statement:
The fourth intergovernmental conference to negotiate an international legally binding instrument under the UN convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction—known in short as the BBNJ agreement—takes place at the UN in New York from 7 to 18 March 2022.
The BBNJ agreement will be an important step forward in ocean governance, building on existing obligations in UNCLOS to protect the marine environment. Formal negotiations on a draft agreement have been underway since 2018. This conference, originally scheduled for March 2020, had to be postponed due to covid restrictions. It will be a key moment for delegations to regroup in person to make progress. This will be challenging in the time available. In a lengthy draft text of more than 70 articles, with many square bracketed options, plus more than 400 pages of alternative text proposals from delegations, there are still a number of key points of divergence in positions.
The mandate for negotiations is set out in UN General Assembly Resolution 72/249 of 24 December 2017. The resolution mandates the negotiations to address the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. The elements of the package to be negotiated are: marine genetic resources, including questions on the sharing of benefits; area-based management tools, including marine protected areas (MPA); environmental impact assessments and capacity-building; and the transfer of marine technology. The resolution also reaffirms that the work of the conference and the agreement should be fully consistent with the provisions of UNCLOS and should not undermine the work of the existing ocean governance bodies. The conference is the final round of negotiations envisaged in the resolution.
The UK is keen to see an ambitious agreement concluded in 2022. Of particular importance are provisions that would enable the establishment of MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
This is important to help to achieve the target to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030, championed by the UK-led Global Ocean Alliance ahead of the upcoming 15th conference of parties to the convention on biological diversity. We also recognise the need to give better effect to UNCLOS commitments on capacity building for, and technology transfer to, developing countries. We understand the need to share the benefits of research into marine genetic resources and are keen to see greater international collaboration and the open sharing of scientific knowledge. The agreement must respect the freedom in UNCLOS for all states to conduct marine scientific research on the high seas, and should not create barriers to such research.
Negotiations will take place at senior official level and the UK delegation is led by the FCDO, working closely with DEFRA, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the National Oceanography Centre, the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Defence and the Natural History Museum. In the last two years of informal intersessional work, the UK has participated in online dialogues organised by the IGC President, Ambassador Rena Lee of Singapore, and in high seas dialogues organised by Belgium, Costa Rica, Monaco and the High Seas Alliance, and has also co-hosted a number of other workshops to build understanding.
The Prime Minister announced the UK’s membership of the High Ambition Coalition on BBNJ at the One Ocean summit organised by France on 11 February. We hope that the coalition will give political impetus to the negotiations and will press coalition members to deliver on their commitments.
[HCWS639]
Singapore Negotiations
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I have today signed a ground-breaking digital trade agreement with Singapore.
The DEA represents the most ambitious package of provisions on digital trade we have agreed to date. It will serve as a model for such agreements in future, cementing the UK’s place as a world leader in digital trade.
The nature of digital trade and the digital economy means that the DEA is about far more than tech firms, valuable as the contribution they make to the UK economy undoubtedly is. Whether it is through opening digital markets, promoting the free flow of trusted data, or slashing red tape through overhauling outdated paper-based processes, digital trade has the potential to turbocharge UK exports and deliver benefits to businesses and consumers across the whole UK economy, from offices in Dundee to living rooms in Derbyshire and factory floors in Devon.
More detail will be set out in the explanatory memorandum that will accompany the laying of the text before Parliament, but key benefits of the deal include:
Supporting UK businesses to access Singapore’s digital markets. Digitally-delivered services made up around 70% of UK-Singapore services trade in 2019, and this deal will help grow our trade in this area.
Cutting red tape by supporting the overhaul of outdated, paper-based trading systems. For example, the agreement contains specific commitments around maintaining legal frameworks that enable the digitisation of trade documents.
Keeping our country and citizens safe through deepening our partnership with Singapore in areas such as cybersecurity, as well as promoting the importance of online consumer protection and personal data protection.
The DEA will also support our bid to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), joining Singapore and 10 other vibrant trading nations. Membership would mean access to a £8.4 trillion free trade area with some of the biggest and fastest- growing markets in the world.
Following signature of the agreement today, it will shortly be laid before Parliament, in line with usual practice, after which it will also be published online. I expect the agreement to come into force later this year once both the UK and Singapore have completed our respective domestic procedures.
[HCWS642]
Transport
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Further to my statement to the House on 21 February 2022, I am updating the House on a new extraordinary funding settlement between Transport for London and the Government which expires on 25 February. I have agreed with the Mayor of London a new settlement to 24 June 2022.
This new settlement demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to supporting the capital, while balancing the interests of the national taxpayer. It provides Transport for London with £200 million of emergency funding as it recovers from the pandemic and continues to work towards financial sustainability. It also continues the Government’s commitment to cover fare revenues lost due to the pandemic. Together, this takes the Government’s overall contribution to close to £5 billion, on top of an ongoing annual capital commitment of just over £1 billion through the spending review, in line with previous levels of funding.
Furthermore, the Government recognise the need for certainty and stability in Transport for London’s capital investment programme. The Government are therefore willing to consider a longer-term capital settlement for Transport for London, which we intend to agree before the start of the next financial year. This will be on the condition that Transport for London co-operates fully and openly with the Government and provides sufficient information and data about its capital investment plans.
Transport for London needs to ensure that it is both financially sustainable in the short to medium term and in good financial health in the long term, ensuring good value for money for the UK taxpayer. Within this next funding period the Mayor has agreed to: prepare a plan setting out options to realise operating cost savings, up to and including £400 million in 2022-2023; progress with consultation on the options he has identified to raise between £0.5 billion and 1 billion per annum of additional revenue from 2023; deliver against TFL’s accelerated modernisation plan and make significant progress in moving the pension fund into a financially sustainable position.
Transport is devolved to the Mayor of London. It is therefore for him alone to take responsibility for the decisions needed to return TfL to financial sustainability. The Government will continue to work with the Mayor and TfL to ensure London’s transport system delivers for local citizens and businesses and contributes to the country’s economic recover. At all times the Government will continue to balance our obligations to the national transport network as a whole and to provide value for money for the taxpayer.
[HCWS641]
House of Lords
Health and Care Bill
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 14, Schedule 2, Clauses 15 to 17, Schedule 3, Clauses 18 to 27, Schedule 4, Clause 28, Schedule 5, Clauses 29 to 40, Schedule 6, Clauses 41 to 43, Schedule 7, Clauses 44 to 61, Schedule 8, Clauses 62 and 63, Schedule 9, Clauses 64 to 68, Schedule 10, Clause 69, Schedule 11, Clauses 70 to 74, Schedule 12, Clauses 75 to 98, Schedule 13, Clauses 99 to 112, Schedule 14, Clauses 113 to 123, Schedule 15, Clauses 124 to 149, Schedule 16, Clauses 150 to 159, Schedule 17, Clause 160, Schedule 18, Clauses 161 to 170, Title.
Ukraine
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie
That this House takes note of the current situation in Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, this is a sombre occasion, but I still welcome the opportunity to provide this House with an update on the latest situation inside Ukraine.
On Thursday, at 5 am Ukrainian time, Russia launched a wholly unprovoked and completely unjustified assault on a sovereign country by air, land and sea. After weeks of military build-up, false-flag events and cyberattacks, reinforced by incessant lies and shameless denial, President Putin finally gave the go-ahead for his so-called special military operation. By any other name, it is a blatantly illegal invasion—utterly shameful and completely shocking.
Since then, we have witnessed a procession of horror as an innocent population of some 45 million people is subjected to a relentless bombardment of missiles and bombs. As I speak, Russia, aided by its Belarusian ally, is invading on multiple fronts. Ukraine’s infrastructure is being blown up. Its cities are under siege. Despite claims in Russian media to the contrary, it is unlikely that Russia has achieved its planned day one military objectives. Ukrainian forces have presented fierce resistance across all axes of Russia’s advance. The Russian forces are likely consolidating their limited gains, but Russian strikes and exchanges of artillery fire have continued throughout the night. None the less, Ukrainians are maintaining a brave and doughty defence. Their courage and resolve are deserving of our highest admiration and respect. It is notable that there have been protests in Russia over Putin’s decision, including from Ksenia Sobchak, the daughter of Putin’s former boss, the late Anatoly Sobchak, the former mayor of St Petersburg.
As a United Nations Security Council member, Russia is charged with establishing and maintaining international peace and security. How hollow does that sound? Russia has made a mockery of those commitments. It has ripped up agreements that it signed up to: the Helsinki Final Act; the Charter of Paris; the Budapest memorandum; and the NATO-Russia Founding Act. All have been shredded. Instead of choosing the path of peace, President Putin has chosen the path of the warmongering pariah. His actions, and his alone, have brought about a continental conflict on a scale that we have not seen since the end of the Second World War. The Russian President has knowingly and wilfully precipitated a refugee crisis of unprecedented proportions and he has set in motion the catastrophic consequences that will not only kill many innocent Ukrainians but, tragically, see many young Russians return home in zinc-lined coffins.
Ukraine is not a NATO member but the United Kingdom was swift to recognise its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Today, we continue to stand up for its rights as a country with a legitimate, democratically elected Government. We remain committed to supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty within internationally recognised borders.
It should be reiterated at every turn that the only reason why we have arrived at this appalling situation is because of decisions made by President Putin himself. He rejected every offer of diplomacy, even while the UK did all in its power to avoid this situation. In recent weeks, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary have all been engaged in numerous efforts with our international counterparts to reach out to Russia. Last week, the Defence Secretary met Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and General Valery Gerasimov in Moscow. During that meeting, Defence Minister Shoigu echoed President Putin’s assurances that there would be no invasion—lies. All the while, international leaders, including President Biden and President Macron, sought to offer President Putin a way out of this crisis. One by one, their overtures were rebuffed. The evidence is irrefutable: the Russian dictator’s mind was already made up.
Today, once again, we urge Russia in the strongest possible terms to call off its attack and return to the diplomatic table, but make no mistake: President Putin will pay the price for his barbarism. In concert with our allies, the UK is doing everything in its power to bring pressure to bear on the Kremlin.
First, as announced by the Prime Minister yesterday, we are introducing a massive package of sanctions designed to constrict the Russian economy. We will end Europe’s collective dependence on Russian energy. German Chancellor Scholz’s decision to stop Nord Stream 2 was a brave and welcome first step. He is absolutely right. We will also be maximising, in tandem with our US and European allies, economic pressure on Russia. Yesterday, the Prime Minister set out some of the steps that we are taking to limit its ability to do business. These include imposing a full asset freeze on state-owned Russian bank VTB, bringing in powers to exclude all Russian banks from the UK financial system and stopping them accessing sterling and clearing payments through the UK.
We will also be introducing new powers to ban Russian state and private companies from raising funds in the UK, as well as stopping them dealing in securities and loans. Russian nationals will find that there are limits to the amount of money that they can deposit in UK bank accounts. The Russian puppet state, Belarus, will also face sanctions. To further constrain the Kremlin, we will be placing asset freezes on hundreds more entities and individuals, including all major manufacturers that support President Putin’s war machine. Russian airline Aeroflot is now banned from the UK and there will be legislation to ban export of all dual-use items to Russia, including a range of high-end, critical technological equipment and components in sectors including electronics, telecommunications, and aerospace. Russian oligarchs will also find that there is nowhere to hide. A new kleptocracy cell in the National Crime Agency will be targeting sanctions evasion and corrupt Russian assets hidden in the UK. In relation to SWIFT, as the Prime Minister has said, nothing is off the table. We are working with international partners.
Secondly, we are upping our defensive military support to Ukraine. The UK was one of the first countries in Europe to send defensive weaponry to help the Ukrainians and we remain an agile defence partner, responding to their request for defensive capability. We have also helped to train more than 22,000 Ukrainian troops. Last month, we also took the decision to provide lethal aid to Ukraine, complementing support from allies and partners. Thirdly, we are bolstering our support for NATO. It is vital at this time to show our iron-clad commitment to Article 5 of the NATO treaty. It is not the disposition of NATO forces but the appeal of its values that threatens the Kremlin. President Putin has made no secret of the fact that he regards the demise of the Soviet Union as
“the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”.
His recent pronouncements should leave no one in any doubt about the serious threat that he poses to his neighbours. Nor can we forget his chilling warning to the West that any attempt to stop or interfere with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would lead to
“consequences never encountered in your history”.
Yesterday, all 30 members of the North Atlantic Council met in emergency session and agreed to activate NATO’s defence plans. Consequently, the alliance is now strengthening collective defence across every domain. The NAC has deployed thousands more troops to the eastern NATO flank. It has more than 100 jets at high alert to protect airspace and more than 120 allied ships at sea from high north to the Mediterranean. The UK is supporting these efforts. We are sending troops to augment the British-led NATO battle group in Estonia. We are deploying RAF Typhoon fighters and Royal Navy warships to protect south-eastern Europe. Our newest aircraft carrier, HMS “Prince of Wales”, now the afloat command platform of NATO’s maritime high-readiness force, is on standby.
The NAC also addressed a request by Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia to hold urgent consultations under Article 4 of the Washington treaty. These allow members states to start consultations whenever they believe that the territorial integrity, political independence or security of an ally is under threat. All NATO members share the same common values and the same willingness to defend those values, come what may. Today, NATO is convening once more to discuss next steps.
Meanwhile, the UK is also shoring up its other partnerships with like-minded allies. On Monday and Tuesday of this week, the Defence Secretary met leaders of our 10-nation joint expeditionary force at Belvoir Castle in Leicestershire. There he underlined our collective resolve to stand together for security and stability in our region and announced that we will shortly conduct an exercise demonstrating JEF nations’ freedom of movement in the Baltic Sea. Finally, we are taking immediate steps to provide humanitarian aid for those who now find themselves displaced. We have put a thousand troops on standby to deal with the exodus of people from Ukraine. When it comes to UK citizens, we continue to support our colleagues in the embassy, which has relocated from Kyiv to the city of Lviv in western Ukraine.
It goes without saying that our thoughts and prayers remain with the Ukrainian people, many of whom have family and friends in the UK, and who now find themselves under attack for no reason whatsoever. At the same time, we remain on guard. While there is no indication at present that Russia intends to directly target British or NATO forces, we should expect their forces and proxies to launch cyberattacks and misinformation campaigns, seeking opportunities to embarrass the UK or NATO and to undermine our resolve. We stand ready to protect our country against any threats, whether conventional or in cyberspace.
However, I am afraid that there is no disguising that a dark new chapter has opened in our history. Those of us who, like me, recall the euphoria at the fall of the Berlin Wall and the lifting of the Iron Curtain never imagined that the day would dawn when war would once more cast its long shadow across the European continent. Yet President Putin has decided to redraw the map of Europe and to heat up the frozen conflicts of the Cold War. His pointless actions do not just strike at an innocent sovereign nation but show contempt for the very ideals of the democracy that we cherish.
We now face a serious threat to our rules-based order and all the risk of miscalculation that that brings. This is a watershed moment in the life of Euro-Atlantic security, but if there is any solace to be taken from recent days, it is in the solidarity that our allies have shown in the face of aggression. Countries across the world have condemned the Kremlin’s atrocities. The G7 and NATO stand united. As the Prime Minister has said, President Putin’s outrageous attempts to destroy democracy cannot be allowed to succeed, so we will continue working with our allies for as long as it takes to ensure that diplomatically, politically, economically and militarily Putin is not allowed to realise his appalling ambitions. We will continue to do all that is necessary to defend the cause of peace and justice.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her introduction to this debate. I am also grateful to the usual channels and the Government for facilitating it. I want to pick up on something that the noble Baroness said: these are ordinary people, and the pictures we saw on the television last night and this morning are deeply shocking. I have no doubt that every one of us in the Chamber has met someone with family in Ukraine. My own husband works with three Ukrainian women who are so upset, it is unbelievable. That is what we should be making our judgment about today. We should always reflect on those ordinary people.
I was extremely pleased to see on today’s list—and I look forward to hearing—the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill. His experience and knowledge, particularly on security and government matters, will make an invaluable contribution to the future work of this House and also to today’s debate.
As my right honourable friend David Lammy wrote in today’s Guardian, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is an unprovoked outrage and a heinous violation of international law. It is proof of his utter disregard for the health and wealth of the people of Russia and Ukraine.
As the noble Baroness said, the situation in Ukraine is changing by the minute; we do not know how the next few hours, days or even years will play out. But what I do know is that what will not change is the united determination of this Parliament and this country to hold Putin and his acolytes to account.
As we heard in yesterday’s Statement, Putin has sought to create a false justification for his actions. Russia faces no threat from NATO or Ukraine. As we heard from the noble Baroness, this is a significant moment in global politics that will have far-reaching implications for future interaction with Putin’s Russia.
Our sanctions and those announced by the EU last night are severe, but they need speedy and strong implementation. But we should also aim higher, to ensure that we cut Russia out of the western economic system, targeting the finance, energy, technology and defence sectors, as well as individuals linked to Putin and the Russian Government. The effects of our actions should be deep and long-lasting. This confrontation will, as the Prime Minister said, last for years into the future.
The Government must now also finally expunge corrupt Russian money from the United Kingdom. Allies of Putin are still able to use the UK to launder dirty money, so we need to see the full implementation of all the recommendations of the Russia report. As my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon said last night, the Elections Bill, which we are considering and which had its Second Reading this week, introduces new loopholes to allow foreign donations to United Kingdom political parties. We will seek to amend the Bill to remove those new loopholes. But, in the light of the actions and the terrible and distressing scenes we have seen on television, I hope that the Ministers—the noble Lord and the noble Baroness—will speak to the Prime Minister about removing these provisions from the Bill and report back to your Lordships’ House.
To defeat Russian aggression, we need to do more than simply attack Putin’s bank balance. Sanctions must be as comprehensive as possible, but we need a broader response to face down his aggression. To defeat Putin we need to unite against the ideology of what Putinism stands for—an ideology that is mirrored in the despots and dictators we see in the rest of the world: in China, in the Middle East and beyond. Those despots will be watching every single move we make from today onwards, and we need to ensure that our response is strong and determined, because they will determine their next moves based on ours. We must not be at all slow in coming forward on this.
Russia’s attack will have long-term implications for the security of Europe. If Putin is successful in the short term, the new front line to Russian aggression will widen to include Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary, as well as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Of course, as the Minister said, we need to strengthen our work with our NATO and European allies and be in lock-step with them in every way. But we need to go beyond that unity and resolve. We need to rally the rest of the world to our position and ensure that there is an international coalition that will oppose this grievous act of war and counter Putin’s ideology and nationalistic expansion. We need to look beyond to other global players to raise the question of the need for sovereign UN states to support the principle of sovereignty and democracy. That is a vital component of our strategy.
As we have seen on the streets of Moscow and other cities in Russia, many ordinary Russian citizens are deeply concerned and upset about Russian troops wading across their nearest neighbour’s borders—the home of many of their family and friends. We need to ensure that we utilise our huge soft power to ensure that we communicate with those people and that they are able to hear the truth and see what is being done in their name. So I hope the noble Lord the Minister will be able to give us a very strong response in that regard. We must never allow our determination to confront Putin to obscure our desire for friendship and peace with the Russian people.
I will conclude with a final point on humanitarian support and aid. I know that the Government are committed to this, as the noble Baroness said, and I certainly heard that in my discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. It is really important that we reassure all our allies who are neighbours to Ukraine that we will be there for them and will support them in every way to make sure that humanitarian support is given. I also heard Ben Wallace on the radio this morning. He is absolutely right. Whatever happens in terms of fighting on the street—and the determination of the Ukrainian people cannot be in doubt to anyone who has heard some of the speeches on the radio and the TV this morning—we need to ensure that we give them not only the fullest humanitarian support but the tools to do the job to fight this awful aggression. I support them.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, only six months ago we were describing the chaotic retreat from Afghanistan as the biggest failure of western foreign policy for decades. That was a fair description, but the Russian invasion of Ukraine tops it because the invasion is not simply a success of Russian military strength but is an equal, collective failure of the West to recognise that Putin was pursuing an aggressive, forward foreign policy which was aimed not just at those territories which he wished to control but at the values of democracy and the rule of law that they embody and the subsequent failure on our part to take measures to counter that.
This invasion follows other Russian power grabs in Crimea, Georgia and Moldova and increasing Russian influence more broadly in the Middle East and Africa. These advances have simply not been met with a serious western response. Afghanistan and Ukraine must now impel the UK to reassess its place in the world and the extent to which it is prepared to make an effort to promote its values against those who aggressively reject them. This is not going to be accomplished quickly, but we if are to avoid future Ukraines, future Afghanistans, we need to start this reassessment urgently now.
I shall suggest today just four areas for consideration. First, we need to be realistic about Britain’s strengths and weaknesses. We are not a global military power, despite the Government’s hubristic rhetoric. The pivot to the east was a major strategic mistake and should be reversed. So was the decision to cut the number of troops. Those cuts should also be reversed.
Secondly, our most important security and economic relationships are with Europe. Windy talk of global Britain cuts no ice when the Russians can seize a friendly European democracy. Post Brexit, the UK has not been part of European, non-NATO discussions on security and foreign policy. We have not, for example, been in the room as the rest of Europe has planned its sanctions against Russia. We have been devoid of influence and have not been able to use our weight to help stiffen the resolve of those who have doubts about taking a firm line. We need to find some mechanism for being a full participant in European policy-making and civilian security and defence policy.
Thirdly, we need to strengthen global structures and programmes which promote our values. With Russia and China on the Security Council, this is not going to be easy, but we should at the very least do what we can within our own powers and resources to begin to address this. Reinstating the cuts to development assistance would be an easy start.
Fourthly, we should set an example in the way in which our leaders behave. We should be principled, honest, knowledgeable and robust. That is how you gain respect and influence. I realise that it is completely impossible to contemplate this under this Government, but we remain a democracy, and this Government will in due course be replaced.
All these issues will take time to work through, but we are faced with immediate challenges today. We had a full discussion of sanctions on the Statement yesterday, and I will not reprise the arguments I made then, but I ask the Minister to respond to reports in the press today that the otherwise inexplicable reason why we have not named Gazprom and Rosneft as well as oligarchs such as Roman Abramovich as subject to sanctions is that we do not have the legal resources to fight any challenge which they might bring. Can the Minister assure me that this is not the case and that these entities and individuals will now, as they should be, be sanctioned?
Sanctions deal with Russian involvement in our economy, but there are also outstanding issues related to possible Russian involvement in our politics. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, the Government have been woefully slow, and indeed negligent, in failing to act on the recommendations of the Russia report. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that they will now be pursued with vigour and, in particular, will the Government release any evidence they have of Russian interference in British politics whether or not they deem it to have been successful?
One of the most predictable results of the invasion is that there will be large numbers of refugees. What is the UK’s position on this? We understand that British troops have been sent to Poland to help with the evacuation of Ukrainian citizens. What part do we intend to play in their resettlement? All Ukrainian citizens will be allowed to enter the EU on a Ukrainian passport. Will they be similarly allowed to enter the UK? In particular, can the Government confirm that they will allow family reunion for Ukrainian citizens who have relatives in the UK and are fleeing the country? Will the Government also consider granting visas to Ukrainians who are working for UK companies in Ukraine, often in tech-related roles, who might now wish to come to live and work here?
Finally, can we have more clarity on what the Government plan to do to support our NATO allies in eastern Europe? We were told yesterday that two fighters were being despatched to Cyprus to patrol NATO’s south-eastern borders. This is welcome, but surely it is not enough. The next potential targets for Putin are the Baltic states. Nobody thinks he is going to invade them tomorrow, but surely we now need to provide them with much more military support. The Estonians, I know, are extremely grateful for the British-led contingent of 1,200 NATO troops who are now stationed their border with Russia, but they are under no illusion that they are anything more than a tripwire and would be rapidly swept aside in the event of any Russian advance. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, referred to this in her speech, but in winding up will the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, give more details of exactly what is now planned in terms of reinforcing those troops and what plans NATO might have for reinforcing its equally small contingents in the other Baltic states?
As a young man I visited Voroshilovgrad, now renamed Luhansk, as leader of the first ever British youth delegation to Russia following the signing of the Helsinki agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Pickles, was also a member of the delegation. It was a notable period. In Luhansk, we stayed in a hotel built by German prisoners of war. Grim history was all around us, but we, and our Russian interlocutors, genuinely believed that we were at the start of a process which would mean that wars in Europe were a thing of the past. It therefore makes me weep today to see what is happening in Luhansk. We must deal as best we can with today’s tragedy in Ukraine, but we must also make sure that it does not become the model for future tragedies.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, noble Lords may have seen that my most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury and I have already spoken about the unprovoked attack on Ukraine as a great act of evil. This is indeed a dark hour for Europe. We have called on Anglican churches to make this coming Sunday a day of prayer for peace and on Tuesday encourage parishes to join the Anglican diocese in Europe in prayer at 6 pm, especially for those who minister and witness for peace in Ukraine itself, where we have chaplaincies and minister alongside other denominations and faith communities. We are all invited to join Pope Francis in making Ash Wednesday—next Wednesday—a day of fasting and prayer for peace.
Perhaps in the West we have taken peace for granted. The horrors being visited on Ukraine must be a wake-up call for us that peace is something you need to work at. What is happening in Ukraine is truly shocking but, sadly, it is not surprising. We have seen it coming. Ukraine now stands alone, unprotected by the treaties that protect us and allow us to believe that peace is a normal state of affairs—but it is not. Peace is a choice, a decision that we make each day about the way we live and about our responsibilities to and with our neighbour, be that in our family, in our community or between the nations of the world. We need the policies, the wisdom, the tenacity and the international resolve that will deliver it.
Previous generations knew this, because they had experienced the horrors of war that most of us have not. In the post-war period, we invested in international bodies and associations that would bind us to each other. For instance, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman said in 1950, when announcing a plan to pool coal and steel production, that its motivation was that “solidarity in production” would make
“war between France and Germany … not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.”
But Ukraine is not defended by NATO. What we have seen from Vladimir Putin in the last few days is a terrible, flagrant disregard of the Ukrainian people’s legitimate right to self-determination. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, put it, he has chosen war.
Right now, as well as generous humanitarian aid and support for refugees, about which I hope the Minister will say more when summing up, we need to know what is happening. We must use all our diplomatic muscle and energy, stringent economic sanctions and focused political will to force Russia to step back from this aggression, withdraw its troops and silence its guns—not least because effective sanctions will mean that many innocent Russians suffer as well. Our actions must be swift and cohesive if they are to be decisive.
Jesus urged His followers to be peacemakers, not simply peace lovers. This is an important distinction because it is a call to action, first in support of Ukraine and especially the many innocent children and families—potential refugees living with this conflict and its consequences—and of those who are bravely protesting on the streets of Russia. But lasting peace requires more. It requires a new commitment to international instruments of law and order, accountability and investment, so that we make peace—not just hope to keep it.
The suffering of Ukraine, the imperialist ambition of Russia and our own acceptance of that immoral flood of corrupt money that flows from Russia through London have to stop. As followers of Jesus, we are praying about this because, yes, we believe that God’s grace will have the final word—not the horrors of sin and not death—but also because that prayer will shape our will and our resolve. Therefore, the prayers of Christian people and all people of faith and good will are with our Government and all the leaders of the free world as we implore Russia to change course. We are also determined to play our part in the active pursuit of peace in our world today.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, like others, I greatly look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, in this debate.
It seems generally agreed that the Prime Minister’s speech on sanctions yesterday was a fine one, as was Keir Starmer’s. This package of sanctions now, although massive, will not be enough. More will clearly be needed—of all kinds; not just financial but on control of supply chains.
It is also fairly clear—to me, anyway—that Mr Putin is losing some of his grip on reality, which is extremely dangerous, with his rambling speech to his people and his threat of consequences never experienced before in history, which seems to come very near to implying the use of tactical nuclear weapons. This really is moving out of the realm of sane and rational calculation. It is said that Mr Putin is supposed to be a very religious man, but I see nothing religious at all in what he is now doing in Ukraine.
I remain concerned about one key aspect of our stance and the western stance. Too many people seem to talk about this as a European crisis, when of course it is actually an Asian crisis and a wider world crisis, not just a NATO matter or a replay of the Cold War and 20th-century East-West confrontation. The world has changed totally since then. Although obviously we need a united NATO—I hope Germany can be kept on board despite the pressures on it about gas—we need a wider unity than that. I slightly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about that point.
People keep forgetting that Russia is half an Asian nation. It really is essential to co-ordinate all trading, business and supply chain sanctions with the major Asian players. I was very glad to see the Foreign Secretary speaking today, apparently, not just to Australia, India, Malaysia and Japan but even to China, the other great Asian power. They are so clearly all threatened by a new world war as much as the rest of us—indeed, even more so because that is where all their growth will be in future and war would undermine it.
Britain should be able to use all our Asian and Commonwealth connections to make a real contribution on this front. If all our sanctions are simply neutered by major Asian economies carrying on business as usual with Russia, western sanctions will have very little deterrent effect on Mr Putin, frankly. I suspect he probably calculated that before he embarked on all this. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, a former Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office, make this very point about our world involvement on the “Today” programme on the radio yesterday. It seems the message is really getting through on that vital point.
My second concern is that the crisis should be a real wake-up call on the need for this country to have a proper energy security policy. Russian gas via Ukraine has not yet been cut off, but it will be at any moment. When it is, all gas prices—which are already crucifying us—will soar ahead even further. Because we import so much gas, not necessarily from Russia but from world markets, and use so much for our electricity—much too much—we will be hit very hard again. There is no reason at all why this nation should not be able to regain a full energy security and food security policy, despite all the past colossal errors. We should have a clear plan and a strategy for doing so as from now. One final hopeful outcome that one looks for in this horror could be that, if we play this right, we will want neither Russia’s gas nor its oil. It can keep them. I hope that at least that message will get through.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, there is an old saying: in Russia, everything changes in 20 years and nothing changes in 200 years. It maybe gets to the heart of the recent crisis, when the unthinkable has become the inevitable.
Over the last few weeks I have been wondering, with the rest of the world, what is inside the head of the man who has, on his own, ordered the violent invasion of a sovereign nation state in this year 2022; whom I met nine times in the Kremlin and in Brussels; with whom I did good business and with whom we created the 20-strong NATO-Russia Council, with Russia as an equal at that table; who personally signed accords guaranteeing the right of nations, and Ukraine specifically, to choose their own
“inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders”;
and who asked me about when we were going to invite Russia to join NATO.
So I ask this today: what irrational thought process has changed that man into the monster who violates the sovereignty—indeed, the existence—of a neighbouring country? What changed that man of the KGB, who this week publicly humiliated the head of his own foreign intelligence service in the full sight of a dismayed world? The answer to many people, and widely accepted, is that he is paranoid about next-door Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. I disagree. I do not think that the organisation that I used to head is the fuel on the Putin fire; it is just a useful demon to scare the Russian public. His real and well-justified fear is of democracy. He has seen how the aspiration of former Communist countries to join the European Union changes these countries permanently and fundamentally. The EU is, in fact, the bogey.
Nations becoming democracies, with a free press, free elections, the rule of law and mixed economies, are a serious challenge to the Putin model of brutal authoritarianism. In his fevered mind, if Ukraine travels in that direction, as indeed it wants to do, then what about the rising revolts in Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan? It is getting, for him, much too close to home. This attack—this breach of international law and of the UN Charter, this heavy-handed assault on a fellow Slavic nation—is actually a sign of weakness, of vulnerability in the face of an inexorable tide of democracy.
So what do we do now? First, we stand absolutely firm and resolute with the Ukrainian people. Secondly, we should finance and supply the resistance to these invaders—make Ukraine the new Afghanistan for Russia. Thirdly, we must build our own defences, protect our own democratic values and imprint in the mind of Putin and his generals the inviolability of the Article 5 guarantee, and the danger to their motherland if they ever thought of crossing that line. Fourthly, we must mobilise the whole world against this outrage and make sure that the sanctions bite savagely and affect the Kremlin’s thinking.
Finally, I remind the House of what President Putin said in May 2002, standing beside me in Rome at the NATO-Russia summit. He said this:
“Russia always had a crucial role in world affairs. The problem for our country has been, however, that over a very long period of time a situation arose in which Russia was on one side and the other side was … the rest of the world.”
He continued:
“Nothing good came of that confrontation between us and the rest of the world.”
These were wise words in 2002; they are even more true today.
Lord Sedwill (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for permitting me to make my maiden speech in a debate of such seriousness. I hope noble Lords will understand if I do not go through the usual personal reminiscences that are customary on such an occasion and use my time to focus on the issue at hand. But let me start with one: I was a junior diplomat in training when the Berlin Wall came down, and I was on duty the weekend that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded Kuwait. I am haunted by those experiences right at the beginning of my career as we face a much more serious challenge today.
For the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has set out, we must take Vladimir Putin at his word. Many thought that he hoped to consolidate Crimea, to intimidate Ukraine and to re-establish the Moscow-Washington channel as the only means of dialogue about European and wider security—but he does not. He wants to reverse the outcome of the Cold War, for the reasons that several noble Lords have set out, and we must assume and act in accordance with that.
I suggest that there are three things that we should do, beyond the measures that the Government, along with our allies, have already taken. I commend the Government for the robust stance that they have taken throughout this crisis, blending diplomacy with defence and strong action on sanctions. The key to sanctions is to impose a higher price than was expected by the offender in the first place. We did that after Salisbury; we must do so again now. Much of what we have seen so far will have been priced in by the Putin regime. For the reasons that we have heard, we should go further, not only with economic sanctions but, for example, dismantling the intelligence networks around the world on which Russia depends—which we dismantled after the Salisbury attack but many others did not. We can provide other countries with the material that they need to do that.
We should also attack the Putin regime on exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, just made: its fear of its own people. When the regime gets bogged down in Ukraine, as is likely, it is important that we reveal the truth to Russia’s own people as well as to other countries that are in play. We should do that through all of the classic means, such as the media, the BBC World Service, Russian-speaking services and so on, but through modern means as well—cyber, social media and information campaigns of the kind that the regime uses against us. One of the only heartening things that we have seen in this very sorry episode was the speedy resistance of some brave Russians to the actions of their Government; we need to encourage that as well.
We must support the Ukrainian resistance with the military and other capabilities that they need as their resistance to the Russian invasion shifts from conventional to unconventional, from military to militia. It is really important that our intelligence services and others have not only the capabilities but the legal frameworks to do so; we have struggled with that in other conflicts elsewhere.
Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said, we must ensure that NATO itself is ready for the next phase. For too long—for the whole period of my career since the fall of the Berlin Wall—we have assumed that the “new world order”, as the first President Bush referred to it, was something on which we could rely and globalisation something we could take for granted. It is now clear that we cannot, so, as well as deploying additional forces to reassure the eastern European nations that NATO will stand by them—that Article 5 is an absolute guarantee covering not only every inch of territory but any cyberattacks or other kinds of unconventional warfare that they might face—NATO must also reaffirm its intention to modernise and deter further Russian aggression. That means every nation not only meeting but exceeding the 2% and quickly putting in place programmes to achieve a proper, integrated NATO capability that can be deployed against Russia or any other adversary, and working through some of the fractiousness that, my word, looks trivial now, between NATO, the EU and other headquarters as they try to try to address those capabilities.
My final point is this: other autocrats are clearly watching us very carefully, as we have heard already, and some of them have territorial ambitions too, but not every authoritarian state, or every state that does not share our democratic values, will be comfortable with what they have seen of Russia trying to breach the borders of another country. Therefore, our diplomacy must encompass those states as well and encourage the collective international response to a breach of not just the rules-based order but the global rule of law.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Sedwill and be the first to congratulate him on his powerful and eloquent maiden speech—a really important contribution to this very serious debate today. The whole House has seen in one shot the expertise and wisdom that he brings to our debates. He has been a colleague and friend for many years. I think I can say that he is the number one crisis diplomat from the Foreign Office ranks, with his expertise in Iraq and the fact that he was UK ambassador to Afghanistan and then the NATO civilian representative there. His arrival in this House greatly strengthens the small Bench of former national security advisers here and the slightly larger bench of former Cabinet Secretaries. Indeed, he held both jobs simultaneously for a while, which is quite a feat; I held one and it was more than enough for me. The House has really gained from my noble friend’s presence and we look forward to many more such powerful speeches in future.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine takes Europe back to the darkest days of the last century. It poses a fundamental threat to the system of international rules that the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, and many others here today spent their careers, as I did, trying to enforce. It has profound implications for peace and security on our continent. I want to make two brief points today. The first is my assessment of what may well now happen in Ukraine, and the second is how the West can respond at a level that matches the seriousness of the horrors that Putin is inflicting on the continent.
First, western intelligence agencies are to be congratulated on calling this right. They have been warning us that Putin intended to mount a full-scale invasion—to some scepticism, to begin with. I think the West was absolutely right in trying to pursue a dual track of diplomacy and deterrence to try to prevent this happening. Both those courses failed but probably nothing would have prevented Putin going ahead.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, that Putin has decided that his legacy must be a buffer zone of weak vassal states surrounding Russia, and that Ukraine, as a vibrant, democratic country, presented a real threat to his vision. We therefore have to be clear that his objective is to overthrow the current Government in Kyiv and replace it with a pro-Russian regime. I think he will try to achieve that by encircling Kyiv rather than by street-to-street fighting, but I think he will do whatever it takes now that he has taken this gamble of throwing everything into Ukraine. The Ukrainian army is fighting valiantly but in the end it cannot prevail against the full might of Russian aggression, so we have to steel ourselves for all this to be accompanied by the round-up and internment of many thousands of patriotic Ukrainians and the whole dismal apparatus of repression, military police, informers and the knock on the door at midnight. That is what will be happening in Europe, on our continent, in the days ahead.
Assuming that Putin achieves that objective, I think that is when his problems then start. In order to keep a quisling Government in power in Ukraine, I do not see how he has any alternative but to maintain hundreds of thousands of Russian troops in Ukraine for the indefinite future, tied down and suffering casualties from the guerrilla fighting that will then follow. There are many risks for him there, as other noble Lords have said. This war is not supported by Russian public opinion. When the body bags start coming back in serious numbers, it will be remembered that it was Putin alone who took the decision and he will carry the responsibility for it. In the end, I am sure that Russia and Putin will be the losers from this gamble.
What can the West do to increase the cost of Putin’s decision? I agree entirely with what noble Lords have said: we must clearly now strengthen the sanctions regime as far as possible. I support what has already been announced on detaching Russia from the western financial system and the benefits of technology and markets in the West. Clearly, we must reinforce NATO’s eastern member states against the risk of spillover or miscalculation. I do not think Putin intends to attack NATO but there is always the risk of miscalculation.
Then we must find the stamina to sustain these measures for years and, potentially, decades. Too often, sanctions regimes erode fairly rapidly. We must not let that happen on this occasion. We need new mechanisms, as we had during the Cold War, to ensure that co-ordination, and we will need to review our own national security policies. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has said, this is now a global issue and we ought to be mobilising a global coalition of support for the international rules that are so important to us.
For the US, that means accepting that China is not the overriding priority and that a strong US presence in Europe and leadership in NATO are vital for American interests. For the EU, it means increased defence spending and years of investment to wean EU countries off dependence on Russian energy. Britain has played a leading part in the crisis management so far and I welcome that, but there is still more to do to prevent London being a safe haven for corrupt Russian money. There is one obvious gap in our foreign policy management, and that is structured co-operation with the EU. That needs to be corrected urgently.
For Putin, the security of Russia depends on the insecurity of the rest of Europe. That is not a doctrine that we can allow to succeed.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who brings to the table the twin virtues of knowledge and experience. So too does the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, who made an outstanding maiden speech, upon which I congratulate him. I, and I am sure the House as a whole, very much look forward to his contributions in future.
I find it hard to find language consistent with the conventions of this House to condemn adequately the behaviour of Mr Putin, those who tolerate him, those who support him and those who implement his policies. One expression in particular has caused me a considerable sense of distaste, and that is the suggestion that his purpose is the “denazification” of Ukraine. Mr Putin is the political descendant of those who signed the Ribbentrop pact, and the military descendant of those who sat on their hands across the river while the Nazis destroyed the Warsaw ghetto and everyone in it.
The truth, as we know, is that it was never about NATO membership or any threat to Russia; those were convenient sideshows that brought representatives of three permanent members of the Security Council almost as supplicants to the court of Mr Putin. It was only after their deception that the truth was revealed. It was and is about Russia and Putin. It is about the restoration of empire and the reputational reward for the would-be emperor, finally revealed in a 5,000-word essay and in a lengthy and at times, frankly, incoherent speech. We are told that Ukraine is part of Russia, created by Lenin; I wonder if Lenin understood that this would be attributed to him some years later. We are told that it is not a nation in its own right. Then why is it a member of the United Nations? We are told that its inhabitants are Russians masquerading as Europeans, with the assistance of a malign NATO and an equally unhelpful EU, who must be encouraged to return to the fold and brought back to the bosom of Mother Russia. “And how will we do it?” asks Mr Putin. “We will do it with helicopter gunships, cruise missiles and heavy armour.”
The truth is that what we are seeing is a new doctrine. Indeed, Mr Putin claims that it is a new doctrine: he calls it “peacekeeping”, and it is of such intellectual integrity that it has acquired the endorsement of President Trump. But we should also appreciate that that doctrine has already been refined in the intervention in Georgia, in the annexation of Crimea, in support of independence for the Donbass, and by being an unhelpful supporter of those who are antagonistic to the Dayton agreement in the settlement of Bosnia.
The truth is that we are witnessing a form of 21st-century colonialism. It involves destruction, it certainly involves death and it involves the displacement of citizens. But the problem for us is that Mr Putin will not be satisfied. Like Oliver Twist, he will want more, and Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may be thought by him to be easy pickings, not least because of the advantage of the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad being so close geographically. These, of course, are members of NATO and are entitled to the protection of Article 5. If it gets to that, in NATO we will need professionalism, leadership and a unity of purpose—perhaps greater than has ever been required of the alliance. I leave your Lordships with this thought: sanctions will not be sufficient.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I particularly agree with what he has just said about NATO. It is also a pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, on his excellent and extremely thoughtful speech.
War in Europe is something my parents and grandparents knew. How would they have felt now? We have been a lucky generation: no war—or no war like this, anyway. My son is a 25 year-old in the Army; God willing, he will not have to fight.
Putin banned me in 2015 for saying some disobliging things about him in the Commons—similar to what I shall say today, in fact. I now view that as a badge of honour, although I still want to go to St Petersburg. He and I are the same age, and, in 1968, I was a 17 year-old climbing in Austria when the Soviet Union invaded Austria’s neighbour, Czechoslovakia. I suspect that the lesson he learned was that tanks work; I learned that one needs to carry a big stick to defend oneself. Ten years later, I was one of 55,000 British troops facing east against the Soviet hordes who were threatening western Europe.
In the last two decades, the dictator has been strengthening his position and his forces, and the West has been pusillanimous in the extreme. In 2006, not one mile from here, his agents poisoned Litvinenko with polonium. In 2008, he invaded Georgia—what did the West do when Abkhazia and South Ossetia were taken over? In 2014, he annexed Crimea and, of course, supported separatists in eastern Ukraine, where there has been a war for eight years. In 2014, a Russian Buk missile shot down Malaysia Airlines flight 17, and 298 people were killed—it was probably fired either with or by Russian soldiers. What did the West do? Well, in February of that year, we all attended the Sochi Winter Olympics. In 2018, he used a nerve agent on our streets, in Salisbury, and, since then, he has attempted the murder of Navalny. What did the West do? The tyrant, Stalin’s successor, has tested our resolve and found us wanting.
So what should we do now? I congratulate the Government on the sanctions imposed so far. No one wants World War III with a nuclear-armed state, but we first have to have real personal sanctions. In 1990, personal property hardly existed in communist states, yet 10 years later there were billionaires. I am sure that many of those people made their way with hard work, but a lot of them were gangsters and crooks. So pass emergency, perhaps time-limited, legislation to allow us to freeze all assets. We cannot freeze the yachts in Saint-Tropez or the skiing chalets in the Alps, but we can freeze estates in the Cotswolds, penthouses in Knightsbridge and football clubs. Look into how the money was earned: it was mostly stolen from the Russian people.
The second thing is further, very real, economic sanctions: no buying of oil and gas from Russia and no dodgy shell companies in British Overseas Territories. It will be pain for us and all of our allies; we will feel it all. At the very least, we will have higher energy prices and power cuts. I congratulate Germany on stopping the Nord Stream 2 pipeline—late—but it must go further. It will hurt us, but perhaps it will undermine Putin with his crooked cronies and with the Russian people.
The third thing is rearmament. For decades, we have been enjoying the peace dividend, yet when there are floods or anything like what is happening today, we say, “Send in the troops”. “Which one?” is the answer. We no longer have regiments of tanks and armoured personnel carriers to defend Europe. We no longer have squadrons of fast jets to deter invasion. We recently spent a fortune on protection equipment—PPE—which may or may not have worked. We now need to spend rather more on protecting ourselves against a very real threat. We need to stop the absurd cuts, as has already been mentioned today. I am delighted to say that, yesterday, I spoke to Sir Edward Davey, who said that he had been calling for this for some time—I am surprised but delighted. The dictator laughs at us. We make strong statements and then cut our defences.
As has been mentioned, we made attempts to understand his fears over NATO but it was all nonsense. Like all bullies, he senses our weakness; he laughs his socks off as we gaze at our navels and emote about transgender issues. I read—I do not know whether it is true—that the National Security Adviser, Stephen Lovegrove, the successor of two noble Lords here, issued a document about white privilege and how we must not use the word “strong”.
The dictator senses our weakness and a total lack of confidence in our society, as we do not stand up to the yobbos ripping down statues or idiots gluing themselves to roads. He sees that we have no confidence or belief in our own values, as we pander to Extinction Rebellion. I have been banging on for 10 years about climate change—remind me how the Moscow branch is doing. We need to pass legislation so that our courts and liberal values are not used against us, as has been happening in libel cases here, particularly with Catherine Belton, who wrote Putin’s People.
You can take analogies only so far, but my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary is right. In 1938, Hitler told Chamberlain that his final demand would be the Sudetenland, because there were a lot of German speakers there. Obviously, appeasement brought peace in our time, but actually, it brought war. The Government have shown resolve—too late, after two or three decades since the end of the Cold War—and now we must do more and ignore the siren voices and appeasers. The future of the United Kingdom, Europe and indeed the world is under threat. We need to regain our belief in ourselves and our values. We need to stand up for those values and for the people of Ukraine.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I intend to focus on just one issue, but I first join the praise for the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, whom I have known for a number of years. I thank him for his very good speech, which of course shows his great experience in a whole raft of areas.
Here we are. There is a war in Europe now. Russia has invaded Ukraine. It is the most ghastly act—a number of speakers have said how unacceptable it is—but it is a war. Generally, when there is a war and an expectation that possibly there might be more war, there is quite a focus on spending in the military. There has been almost no talk from the Government about enhancement of spending on the military. None of us wants to have a greater war, but it is clearly a possibility. I find it extraordinary.
I hope that, even as we are speaking, contracts are going out within the Ministry of Defence to fill up the shortfalls that we have across our defence forces. There is no doubt that we have shortages of weapon stocks. We have weapons that have not been brought up to the right sort of state and there has not been the maintenance that is needed and required. This is because we have steadily cut our defence forces over a number of years, which has not been unnoticed by Putin and other dictators—people pay regard to this. He has built up an idea that, in the West—in our own country but particularly in Europe—people were not willing to stand up for and, if necessary, actually fight for what they believed in. Putin drew that conclusion, and you cannot blame him when you look at the dearth of spending on defence across the EU—the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, touched on this and mentioned that we must strengthen our military.
As I say, I really hope that, as well as sanctions, which are great—they should be as vicious as possible, as we need to show Russia that this is unacceptable—we are spending, and sorting out problems and strengthening the military as we speak. The problem in defence is always that it takes time to make a major change—that was what we all said over the last years, when things were being cut—but, my goodness, we absolutely have to do this because, as has been said by a number of speakers, we must reinforce NATO within the eastern European NATO countries, which are relying on us. They joined NATO because they liked Article 5. They knew that Russia was still a threat—they have always seen that—and we absolutely have to reinforce the NATO forces that are there.
A number of speakers have mentioned this already: at one time, we would have been able to put an armoured division into somewhere like that. Now, however, we would find it very difficult to provide an armoured brigade: that is the state we have got to. So we really must spend some money on defence.
Why do we need to reinforce those eastern European NATO countries? The reason is that we must show Putin that if he does anything in those regions, there will be a fight—and it needs to be a fight that can be at a conventional level: otherwise, the nuclear tripwire is too low, and that is a horrifying thought. As my noble friend Lord Robertson also mentioned, I saw the speeches that Putin made to his nation. I must say that he has always been an unpleasant and nasty man, but I used to think there was a certain rationality to him. That gave me the impression that he was unbalanced, and the last thing you want is someone unbalanced in control of a country that has major nuclear weapons and who has spoken loosely about them. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that Putin’s statement was in effect saying, “You watch out, I’ve got a nuclear weapon”. We know that his policy of de-escalation is to fire a nuclear weapon. What an extraordinary and terrifying prospect. So we must reinforce our military and make sure that it is strong enough, and we must get into eastern Europe to show that we have that will. I hope that, by those means, this will not extend any further. However, I must say that I am very worried about this. We must start thinking about enhancing our military and, in the future, looking at 3% on defence—that would give a strong message. We are in a different and very dangerous world.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I join with others in welcoming my noble friend Lord Sedwill and his remarkable, notable and distinguished maiden speech.
Yesterday during a meeting, the Ukrainian ambassador described to me fighting in the government district of Kyiv as President Zelensky continued to work from his office. What more can the Minister tell us about the safety of President Zelensky, his family and his Cabinet—and, if necessary, about providing a place of safety for a Government in exile?
I will say something about justice and the rule of law. On 1 July 2019, Ukraine recognised the International Criminal Court and, in 2020, signed the Rome statute. It has made two special ad hoc declarations under Article 12(3) of the statute, giving the ICC jurisdiction over crimes perpetrated on its territories from November 2013 onward. First, the Maidan demonstrations and, after later events, the prosecutor’s preliminary examination concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity had already been committed. Yesterday, we saw why the ICC should now take urgent next steps, requesting authorisation from the Pre-Trial Chamber to investigate Putin’s invasion and his contempt for the rule of law. Impunity for previous crimes simply begets further crime.
The ICC is a court of last resort. The Government’s law officers should urgently liaise with the prosecutor about prioritising the case of Ukraine and requesting authorisation to investigate, and ultimately prosecute, the perpetrators. Unlike a referral via the Security Council, such an action could not be vetoed by Russia. The evidence of such crimes is written across the scarred face of a woman on the front pages of our newspapers today whose apartment in Kyiv was bombed yesterday. Russia’s military and political leaders must be put on notice that they, and the members of the Russian Duma who voted for this act of aggression, need to know that, in addition to welcome economic sanctions, their future ability to travel to any of the 123 countries which have ratified the Rome statute will leave them open to arrest and being brought to justice.
Then there is the question of self-defence. I was shocked by reports that Estonia was stopped by Germany from sending munitions to Ukraine over its territory. Notwithstanding its welcome decision on Nord Stream 2, when one NATO country stops another NATO country from assisting in self-defence and upholding liberty and democracy, what does that say about our unity and shared values as an alliance? As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, NATO has kept the peace and is not an instrument for territorial conquest. Putin, not NATO, is the aggressor, and Ukraine shows that NATO must be recalibrated and united for these dangerous times.
The US has 35,000 troops defending 400 million Europeans, who themselves have a $21 trillion economy. The US pays 75% of NATO’s costs. The UK, to its credit, meets 2% of the NATO contribution. It is high time that Germany and the others did the same. We, too, must carefully recalibrate and reconsider the cuts to our armed forces—to which the noble Lord, Lord West, and others, referred—our strategic deficiencies, about which my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup has written this week, and our overdependency on hostile actors.
In 1989, we celebrated the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Iron Curtain. We do not need another one. Yesterday, we saw thousands of people carrying backpacks and dragging suitcases to the Ukrainian border following Putin’s invasion—wickedly adding to the 82 million people who are already displaced or refugees in the world today. There are predictions of 5 million more displacements. Poland alone is preparing to receive up to 1 million refugees. The UNHCR has warned of “devastating humanitarian consequences”. Putin and Lukashenko cynically use refugees as cannon fodder. What are we doing to open safe routes and contain this human catastrophe?
Finally, I have never forgotten the sheer courage and determination of pro-democracy activists whom I met on the streets of Lviv in 1989 as they risked their lives to throw off the shackles and chains of the Soviet Union. I met people who had spent most of two decades in Soviet prisons and families who had, in the previous generation, lost loved ones to Stalin’s Holodomor: the man-made famine that convulsed Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 and led to millions of deaths. Paradoxically, today many countries—especially in the Maghreb and Middle East—rely on Ukrainian wheat to feed their people. How will we deal with that? As other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Collins, have said, what will we do to ensure that the truth—often usually the first casualty in the fog of war—is heard via the BBC World Service and social media? In 1989, Ukraine began to replace pain with hope. In inflicting more pain, Putin outrageously suggests that Ukraine never existed and should no longer exist. However long it takes, we must prove him wrong.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I am particularly pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who spoke with passion of his particular interests and involvement in Ukraine. The maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, has also brought out very clearly the value of this debate today. He started his career with the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain, at a time when I myself also had some slight involvement. This is not the moment to discuss the organisation or constitution of our country, but the Commons had a very valuable debate that showed a considerable degree of unity at this time, and the value of your Lordships’ House—which we have already heard today and will continue to hear in further speeches to follow—is the quality of experience that can be brought to bear, and the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, spelled this out admirably. His was a speech that could never have been made by a current Member of Parliament, but it brought real authority to what he had to contribute to this House.
I look back on my own experiences with the Soviet Union during the time of Margaret Thatcher. I remember her describing President Gorbachev as:
“A man I could do business with!”
I do not think that President Biden or President Macron would say the same about the current occupant of that office. He is a man who has now become a completely new dimension of international pariah. I think I am right in saying that the only person who has sent a message of support to Putin for the actions he has taken is Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
The first lesson that I draw out of this is that, after the awfulness of the current situation and invasion, we have had—as the noble Lord, Lord West, said—the clearest possible warning to NATO to wake up and to understand. It has been given an absolute demonstration of what it could face in the Baltic states and others and of the range of an attack that could be developed, not just by conventional military but by the whole new world of cyber, hacking and different threats and disorganisation—which is clearly an important part at the moment of the whole Russian attack.
This is all going on in an incredibly dangerous world. It would have been almost inconceivable at the start of the pandemic for anyone to think that, in the middle of a pandemic, when every country in the world is facing that threat, we would find military action of this kind. The world is facing not just the pandemic. We see the number of failed nation states that there are presently; the mass migration of people; the global scale of the refugee challenge; and—as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned—famine threatening so many parts of the world. I understand that Yemen, which is threatened with the most severe famine, is in fact a customer of Ukraine corn and is dependent on part of the Ukrainian harvests. All those dimensions together emphasise the importance of the calling of this debate, which your Lordships’ House has illustrated so well.
The challenge that we now face is to ensure that the response, not just from the West but globally, is of total world outrage. I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Howell referred to: it is not just the West, but the East and Pacific countries as well. Everybody must stand up and make quite clear, not just to President Putin but to many Russian people, who will be horrified—many have already shown their horror at what is happening—that Russia will become an international pariah under his leadership and that this invasion must be stopped. International pressure must be brought in every possible way in every possible country that is able to contribute to ensure that the earliest possible relief can come to the brave people of Ukraine. We must then establish much stronger international support for the forces of democratic defence that we need at this time.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord King, and the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, in his admirable maiden speech, in calling for a global response.
We are in dark days, the like of which we thought we would not see again in our time. My theme is simple: the current invasion was predictable—indeed, it was predicted—and much of it depended on the gullibility of the western response. So far as the predictability is concerned, much of that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. On the Russian domestic side, I just mention Magnitsky, Navalny and the blows to the freedom of the press. Abroad, we of course had Skripal in Salisbury and the invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014. It was predicted. Indeed, looking back, historians will see the triumph in particular of US intelligence in predicting what would happen: the incremental deceit, step by step leading to the actual invasion.
Then we have the question of the nature of President Putin—once a member of the KGB, always a member of the KGB. I was in the foreign service in the 1960s and I recall that there was no Soviet speech possible without talking about revanchist West Germany and about the encirclement of the Soviet Union. Putin mentioned Nazis in respect of Ukraine, which was an echo of the 1960s. Of course, he had the humiliation of Yeltsin and Gorbachev, and Monday’s speech spoke volumes of his nature. Where will it end? Putin has not actually declared his war aims. The minimalist aim is surely the water supply of Crimea and the Mariupol corridor; the maximum is the restructuring of the whole of the security architecture of Europe according to his will.
All this has been aided by the West, which has given Putin the benefit of every doubt. President Macron talked about being deceived—surprise, surprise. To turn the spotlight on the UK, we have allowed so much Russian gold to come in; I congratulate Mr Tugendhat on the Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place. Let us look also at our overseas territories, which are a gap that has not yet been filled. Yet Russia is relatively weak. On analysis, I do not accept what some Americans tell me about Russia being only “a gas station with nukes”; it has a powerful military but, overall, it is still relatively weak and we should appreciate that. Will it be able to sustain a lengthy occupation of Ukraine?
What should be the response? Yes, sanctions could make Putin pay a price. There has been approval of the brave decision of Germany in respect of Nord Stream 2. The Ukrainian people have responded well thus far. I was at a conference in Odessa two months ago as the only UK parliamentarian and was most impressed by the morale of the people. There will be much greater resistance than Putin so far assumes.
I ask the Minister, if I may, about China. China will presumably veto any United Nations Security Council resolution. Is it likely that Russia will now become increasingly dependent on China? What has been the Chinese response, in spite of the Chinese line of “no interference in internal affairs”?
Obviously the West must underline our own red lines, as my noble friend Lord West said. What are the consequences? We must be honest: we must be ready to pay a price ourselves. We must look to make Russia a pariah. I mention the Council of Europe: Putin is not going to lose any sleep over it, but how absurd it is that Russia is allowed to remain a member of what is the key human rights organisation in Europe. NATO must give a united response. One unintended consequence of Putin’s advance and invasion is surely this: there will be a united NATO, which will respond as such, and it may be that Sweden and Finland will look at their own interests and decide that they too must become members of the alliance.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the security warnings, as Ukraine was encircled, were indeed right. It seemed that the Ukrainian leadership itself thought full invasion was unthinkable—no doubt justifiable in any sane world. Others, maybe even Joe Biden in his off-the-cuff remark about limited incursion, thought that the long battles in Donbas pointed to Putin seeking a land corridor from the Crimea. Yes, that is now being achieved, but the apparently unthinkable has happened.
A number now point to evidence of Putin potentially being an unhinged leader—indeed, maybe we have another casualty of Covid—but we have had only recently to worry about a US President with his finger on the nuclear button, someone who has just expressed admiration for Putin. William Hague—the noble Lord, Lord Hague —and others warned us that Putin had made his views clear that Ukraine should not be counted as a sovereign country. His sense of history is not ours. Timothy Garton Ash notes:
“To be clear: when … he threatened anyone ‘who tries to stand in our way’ with ‘consequences you have never encountered in your history’, he was threatening us with nuclear war.”
We must take that extremely seriously.
No one managed to rein in Hitler. No one is reining in President Xi in China. The UK has proved totally powerless as the rights of Hong Kongers are trampled on. What will the world do if President Xi invades Taiwan? China will be watching closely here. The West’s reactions must be assessed as to whether they will have traction over those around Putin—we can be sure they will not have traction with Putin himself.
Experts note that this time, unlike with Crimea, Putin did not bother to prepare the Russian people for this invasion. Has the occupation been in the pipeline for many years, or just more recently, particularly since dealing with the upsurge of dissent in Belarus? I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said—the real fear here was democracy on Putin’s borders. Because of that lack of preparation, we can see that not all Russia supports him. There have been demonstrations by brave people. Our sister party in Russia, Yabloko, has declared that the war against Ukraine is “the gravest crime”. It sees the consequences to be long lasting and that behind this are
“lies, cruelty and absolute indifference of the Russian authorities to people.”
It is clear that the invasion was contrary to the national interests of Russia and
“destroys the future of Russia.”
How right it is, but also how brave.
Sanctions will not be effective unless they really bite, as we have heard, so can the Minister tell us why the economic crime Bill, already ready to go, cannot come forward immediately? He has fought hard against public registers of holdings in the overseas territories; will he now change his mind? We cannot wait, for example, for the Serious Fraud Office and others to be strengthened. Fighting financial crime in the City of London was also partly funded by ODA money: this is another area where aid cuts have bitten. Why are Rosneft and Gazprom not among those sanctioned? Is it fear? We see the exercise of money and power when we see Catherine Belton under severe legal pressure over her book, Putin’s People. It is the subject of five separate lawsuits brought by Russian billionaires and Rosneft. We should note here BP’s involvement with Rosneft: what engagement are we having there?
It is likely that Russia, in the first instance, will prevail in Ukraine. Clearly, those within the country who will be targeted are in the utmost danger. Will we be more generous to refugees than we are with the Afghans, where we promised sanctuary and then slammed the door? Clearly, it is vital to secure the countries to the east, but we also need to be aware of the destabilising Russian influence in the Balkans. By pulling out of the EU, we gave up much of our influence there. The Russians are busy with misinformation. We have had war in Europe in more recent times than World War II, in the Balkans, and Russia is playing a part in helping to stoke things there, destabilising the region.
I am glad we are working with the EU, but we are on the edge. We have not been able to play a central role; for example, in persuading Italy to move further on sanctions. Do we note that China is cultivating Italy? We cannot let our attention shift, as it has, for example, away from Afghanistan, with dire consequences. We need to recognise the continued threat from Putin and similar threats from other authoritarian regimes, where those in power have amassed to themselves great wealth and power, and perhaps increasingly developed the paranoia that can go along with that, with such dangerous consequences for the world as a whole.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I join the near-universal condemnation of current operations by Russia against Ukraine. Frankly, the return of violent war in Europe is an obscenity, and a return to state-on-state war is not acceptable in the 21st century. Putin and Putin’s Russia must pay the price for what they are currently carrying out. However, many of us will have seen that many Russians do not support what President Putin is doing. They see this as Putin’s war and the Kremlin’s war; it is not their fight and we need to recognise that.
In condemning what the Russians are doing, I commend the Ukrainians for the spirit with which they are resisting. They may be outgunned and out-tanked, but they are certainly not out-spirited, and we need to support that spirit. Our response must be unified, intense and sustained. The unity of the West is one of our strongest weapons. The sanctions being mooted must be the widest and deepest imaginable and, moreover, the isolation of Russia from all international fora must be complete. All this must be sustained for the long term.
If Putin’s operational aim is to effect regime change in Kyiv in order to bring Ukraine into the wider Russian sphere, I suggest that our strategic aim should be regime change in Moscow to bring Russia back into the family of civilised nations. Closer to home, I welcomed last year’s announcement by the Government of an increase in defence spending, but the quantum of that remains insufficient and the balance within it remains incorrect. Our land warfare capability has become a shadow of our other capabilities. Frankly, we need to see an investment in our main battle tanks, in our infantry fighting vehicles, our artillery and our air defence. We may aspire to put an armoured division into the field, but we cannot: at the most, we might be able to field a weak armoured brigade. That is completely unacceptable.
Theodore Roosevelt, speaking about international relations, said:
“Speak softly and carry a big stick”.
With regard to Ukraine, we have been speaking softly, but I ask: where is our big stick?
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, yesterday, 24 February 2022, is a date which will live in infamy. President Putin told his people that the purpose of the invasion was to de-Nazify Ukraine. The repulsive irony of his lying statement is that, from the very first pictures, the Russian assault looked just like the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939, or of Russia itself two years later. Putin’s Panzers are on the warpath in a manner that would make Hitler proud.
I, like many others, bought into the myth of Putin, the cool-headed, chess-playing strategist who was never going to invade Ukraine. At the beginning of the year, Putin sent to Washington and NATO Headquarters in Brussels two draft treaties. These set out his demands: Ukraine never to join NATO and NATO to retreat to the status quo ante the collapse of the Soviet Union. These demands went beyond the acceptable, but there was something in them that we might have been able to work with. However, by invading Ukraine, he has blown diplomacy out of the window. By personally deceiving both President Macron and Chancellor Scholz, he has lost all trust. His aggression will strengthen NATO’s unity and determination to protect its eastern members. That is the very opposite of what is to be found in these draft treaties—the very opposite of his wish to reverse the security arrangements put in place after the Cold War.
Europe will now become an armed camp, in which NATO is revived by the adrenaline shot of Russian aggression. Putin, in his derangement, has thus sabotaged his own ambition. What we have to fear in Putin is not an ice-cold calculating machine but a leader become unhinged by his grievances over, as he sees it, history’s injustice and the West’s indifference to his demands. We should have seen this coming and done something to prevent it.
The question now is how far Putin’s megalomania will go. Ukraine is not the limit of his ambitions, as many noble Lords have pointed out. Even as we speak, the Balkans are boiling up again, with Serb revanchism aided and abetted by Moscow.
As it is, Ukraine is ablaze on a scale not seen in Europe since 1945. Short of nuclear war, the situation could not be more dangerous. Putin has smashed the Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015, driven a coach and horses through the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, brushed aside the OSCE and violated the 1994 Budapest understanding. To all of these, Moscow had put its signature.
But, as always, we in the West judge our enemies by our own standards rather than theirs. We believed, or wanted to believe, Putin’s assurances that he had no hostile intent towards Ukraine, even though he had been amassing troops, launching cyberattacks and staging provocations. Of the justifications he has publicly given for attacking Ukraine, not a single one is true. Now, too late in the day, we realise that he had been planning this all along, drip-feeding false information to his own people since 2014. The West’s naivety will be a lesson that should remain with us for the rest of the century and beyond.
As someone of Russian blood, and some Ukrainian blood as well, and as someone whose family was arrested and killed by the Bolsheviks, I can only weep for the Ukrainian and Russian people. They will be the ones who pay the price for Putin’s lies and deceptions.
Can my noble friend the Minister say whether Her Majesty’s Government will discuss with NATO allies the urgent need to increase defence budgets so that our alliance can offer serious deterrence to Russian aggression? Is she confident that the FCDO has adequate Russian and Ukrainian expertise, including language speakers, on hand?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, like others, current events ricochet around my family life. My father fought in what he believed would be the war to end wars in Europe. He fought for peace, the rule of law and democracy, and against invasions. My sister was born on 4 March 1946—one day before the Fulton, Missouri speech when Churchill stressed the need for the US and Britain to act to guarantee that resulting peace and stability against the Soviet menace which had lowered an “iron curtain” across Europe.
I was born, like NATO, in 1949; in West Germany, where my father—still in the Army—worked to help resettle displaced persons, concentration camp survivors and those made homeless or stateless or relocated during the years of conflict. They were a reminder of the long post-conflict fallout for the people of disputed lands. In the case of Ukraine, many were never to return, as the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, movingly described in the Times. His family was from Lwow—known to his great-grandfather as Lemberg—which is of course Lviv; those name changes are testament to the conflicts in that great land. No wonder that, for our noble colleague, this is not happening in a faraway country of which he knows nothing. It is uncomfortably close to home.
Yesterday, I received this message from Vitaliy in Lviv, after attacks had already started in the capital:
“In Lviv everything is still scarily quiet. Shops are empty, but there are queues at ATMs and pharmacies. We’re just patiently waiting for an attack. I’m worried for the safety of friends and family. It’s horrible to realize how one pathetic man could force a war.”
His Kentish Town colleague, Aidan Muller, was in near disbelief that, in 2022 in Europe, his Ukrainian friend was heading down to air raid shelters.
Sadly, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds wrote yesterday:
“Ukrainians are no strangers to conflict or sacrifice. This is a land which saw millions killed under the jackboot of a dictator who, to echo Putin’s line, had no greater obligation than to ‘defend the security interests of our own people’.”
That false pretext of Hitler was no more convincing than the pretexts of today’s Russian dictator. As the right reverend Prelate wrote:
“History never repeats itself, but echoes can be felt for generations.”
That explains some of the deep anguish now being felt in Ukraine. We remember Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, said, we remember what we thought was a game-changer on that other 9/11 in 1989, when the wall came down. We were clearly wrong.
An attack on one is an attack on us all—something wider than NATO, wider than any military or territorial approach—for this attack is on the precious, invaluable, democratic family, a family with a free press, free and fair elections, the rule of law and respect for sovereignty, agreed borders and self-determination.
I do not know the Ukrainian equivalent of “Ich bin ein Berliner”. But I know why we weep for Ukraine.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. I agree with every word she said. It is an honour to join the chorus of congratulations to my noble friend Lord Sedwill on his maiden speech. As usual, he was forensic, expert and persuasive. Your Lordships’ House will need all those qualities as we confront a gathering crisis which will test not just the UK but the whole international system.
This crisis is the product of one man’s obsession—one man who, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, reminded us, has changed his mind. He used to accept Ukraine as a sovereign state. However, in 2007 President Putin told the Munich Security Conference that he no longer accepted the supplicant role he saw as assigned to Russia at the end of the Cold War. In 2014, he annexed Crimea. In the intervening eight years, he has become increasingly careless of the home front; he assumes the support of the Russian people and requires it of his Ministers. Public acceptance of previous military operations cooled when the zinc-lined coffins of soldiers began to be shipped home. To avoid that problem this time, Putin has equipped the army with mobile crematoria.
On Monday, the world witnessed an extraordinary meeting of Russia’s national security council in the Hall of the Order of St Catherine in the Kremlin. He demonstrated that it is not only President Macron and Chancellor Scholz whom he keeps at a distance but also the people supposed to be his closest advisers. The only player whom he has taken trouble to court is President Xi. When Putin visited Beijing for the opening of the Olympics on 4 February, the two signed the “no limits” partnership. They presented themselves as birds of a feather, if not allies. The long opening section on democracy fails even to mention the word “elections”, still less acknowledge the vital importance of regular, free and fair elections for a vibrant democracy.
Today the international community faces a test in New York. The UN is a strikingly sympathetic forum for Russia, in part because Russia has posed as an opponent of colonialism. However, the speech by the Kenyan permanent representative on Monday was, perhaps, an indication that things are changing. In today’s vote at the Security Council, all eyes will be on the Chinese. Will they join Russia in vetoing or will they abstain?
The West has settled its course with sanctions that we are rapidly ratcheting up. China is watching with a direct interest. For them, Taiwan is analogous to Putin’s analysis of Ukraine: a renegade province which must be brought to heel. To affect future Chinese behaviour, we must now demonstrate our seriousness to China—our determination to withstand economic pain ourselves in order to defeat Putin. More than that, and much more difficult than that, we need to persuade China to join us.
Every international crisis has a key forum for its handling. Given the Russian veto, this time it is unlikely to be the UN. To me, the G7 looks most promising—more particularly, the G7 co-ordinating closely with China. Fortunately, Germany is in the chair—the G7 member with the best relationship with Beijing. To work, sanctions need to be comprehensive, prolonged, and rigorously and universally applied. If China is not playing, they will take many years to deliver. China is, by far, Russia’s largest trading partner. In 2020, bilateral trade was nearly $150 billion, more than five times the volume of the Netherlands in second place. The UK was in third place—the only top 10 partner with rapidly increasing trade in 2020.
Today, the Foreign Secretary writes in the Telegraph that we must be ready to accept short-term pain for long-term gain. With respect, that is wrong; we must be prepared to ensure long-term economic pain because it is the right thing to do to save Ukraine. More than any other single factor, China’s behaviour will determine the speed of success. If China will not join us, then the West needs to think again about its relationship with China. The stakes could not be higher.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, there is one particular lever that we especially control, and that is access to the financial and legal services of the City of London. The Government have taken steps now to begin to ban Russia from accessing those services—I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that they are going much farther than the original announcement. I also understand that actions are being taken in co-ordination with the United States and with financial centres across the EU. But perhaps the Minister could talk to us about the relationship that we have with both Singapore and Hong Kong, with their very active financial centres, and other potential locations that could provide an alternate route and tell us what progress has been made on closing down access on those markets as well.
We also control a lever—I am almost ashamed to say —and that is access to the money laundering capabilities of the City of London, widely known as the London laundromat. We are all aware that London has been washing dirty money from kleptocrats and oligarchs—with strong connections to Putin and his regime—in the hundreds of millions of pounds and, frankly, the Government have gazed on it with a fairly lax eye, promising action, but very little has actually taken place.
The Government have announced that they will freeze the assets of those on the sanctions list—and I hope that includes their networks of family and associates to whom most of the assets have been passed. Liquid assets will already have been moved out of the UK in the past few days. I regret that we were not in a position, apparently, to act earlier and more quickly to prevent the escape of those assets. But most will have disguised ownership and a complex web of shell companies. We know that over £1 billion is settled in London property alone—again, under shell company names—but there is so much more in sports clubs, communications and operating businesses. It really will be a terrible task to unravel it. I join those who take the view that, in many cases, these assets should be seized and not just frozen. I must ask the Minister: are our Crown dependencies and overseas territories adopting the same sanctions? Because if not, we do not have a loophole; we have an escape hatch.
Please can the Minister bring forward, as soon as next week, the Bill for the public register of beneficial owners of property in the UK? I think I am probably not supposed to know this, but this legislation has been drafted and ready to go for weeks. The Government have made the decision not to introduce it and to hold it back as part of a broader piece of legislation; it does not need to be—it can stand alone. It is urgent and could be tackled very rapidly. I am sure both Houses will co-operate. In looking at immediate issues, will the Government support the amendment passed by this House in the National Insurance Contributions Bill for public registers in the freeports to prevent the London laundromat being devolved out across the country? I hope that they will.
Speaking of networks—I talked about family and associates—we also have to bring to book the enablers of money laundering, including the legal firms, the accountants, the banks, the property agents and the developers. That network is laced with respectable names, and many are very well connected throughout the current political establishment. Can the Government tell me: will the new kleptocrat unit in the National Crime Agency also be tackling these enablers and tackling them vigorously? If this unit is to be more than a gimmick, it has to be properly staffed, it has to have strategy and goals, it has to have priorities, and I am told that none of these is currently in place—if I am wrong, I would appreciate the comments of the Minister. To empower this unit to go after the enablers, will the Government commit immediately to introduce “failure to prevent” legislation? We have templates from other Bills—the drafting would be a matter of hours.
I hear that the Biden Administration have engaged intently over recent weeks with US companies that will be impacted by economic sanctions, making clear their intentions and assisting in mitigation. The companies I have talked to do not report the same engagement in the UK, but perhaps my vision is too narrow. Have the UK Government been doing the same? And since I am focusing on finance, have they met with the key players in the City of London, both to use their expertise in shaping sanctions and to give them a clear view of their intentions so that they are prepared to act and to act quickly and effectively? Could the Minister perhaps tell us which players have been involved in such discussions with regard to finance—regulators, banks, insurance companies, fintechs, et cetera?
While it will take an international decision, are the UK Government totally committed to closing Russia out of SWIFT—the international money transfer system? That is probably the most effective tool of all to show Russia its pariah status. But our companies in our country will need mitigation to cope with the consequences of that, and is that planned?
UK firms will be hit by the effect of sanctions, some devastatingly. The UK population, especially the poorest, will be hit by a spiralling cost of living. Will the Government have a rescue fund, and other mitigations, for SMEs that are hurt, and also will they look at the damage to the UK population and now increase universal credit and cancel the rise of the national insurance contributions uplift?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, one of my first professional involvements with Ukraine was in 1994 when, as Britain’s Permanent Representative to the UN, I was instructed, along with my Russian and US colleagues, as co-depositories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to transmit to the UN the Budapest memorandum, certifying it as a formal international agreement. The memorandum guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in return for handing over all the nuclear warheads and missiles that the Soviet Union had left behind. My Russian colleague was one Sergei Lavrov. I hope that touches his conscience—it certainly should do—but I rather doubt whether it does.
We need to realise, I believe, that the events of the last few days have triggered a second Cold War. Like the first, it will probably last quite a long time and impose costs on ourselves as well as others. It will be a necessary response to a war of choice, a war of aggression, and therefore a war crime.
How, in practical terms, should we react? We should surely give no international legitimacy to any puppet Government the Russians may try to install, nor to the Governments of the five illegal statelets they have installed in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine by the use of force. The elected Government of President Zelensky should remain our interlocutor and the holder of Ukraine’s UN seat.
On further sanctions, I hope that excluding Russia from the SWIFT payment system will figure. It is a pity we are not at the European Council table, or in the room at least, to advocate for that. Do we not, too, need to consider recreating something like the CoCom international system on strategic exports? Should we not also consider reviving in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office what used to be called the information research department to deal with disinformation and to undermine the false narrative being put about by the Kremlin, RT and trolls on social media? I very much welcomed the emphasis the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, gave to that issue in his remarkable maiden speech. Then there is the economic crime Bill, still to appear; surely that needs to go on to the statue book in this Session of Parliament and not the next one. Of course, Ukrainians will need all the humanitarian help we can give them, and Ukrainian asylum seekers must, and I hope will, be treated rapidly and sympathetically.
The Russians have thrown down the gauntlet against the European security order they themselves helped to create in 1990. We will need to respond to that challenge with patience and determination by boosting the defences of NATO allies most exposed to pressure; by recognising that the European region is now a higher priority for us than the Indo-Pacific region; and by keeping in lockstep with the US, our other NATO partners and the EU itself, which is already playing a key role over sanctions.
Yesterday was a grim day for all Europeans. But we rose successfully to the challenge after the Second World War, and we should be able to do so again now. It is our own security that is at stake.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, I was in Germany when the wall fell. It was a marvellous moment to have the whole of our continent back instead of being faced by a line through the middle of Germany—just a few hundred miles from us, after all. That was, for practical purposes, as far east as one could go in those days. I never thought that I would have the pleasure of seeing all that reversed in my lifetime, but it was. Now we travel backwards as Russia occupies Ukraine.
It is pretty clear, I think, that Putin intends to oust President Zelensky and his Government and imprison him if he can, if not worse. A puppet regime will be installed, and the country will be ruled with an iron fist to counter what I think will be the inevitable insurgency.
I have to say, I have some doubts about the thesis that Putin really fears democracy, certainly in any normal sense of the word. I think he has a profound contempt for it, which is why there is some trust in the thesis that he has almost certainly taken on more than he thinks and understands in trying to hang on to a Ukraine that has learned about different ways of running society. I hope that will prove to be the case.
Sadly, as the speeches in this House have already indicated, we should not imagine that this situation is going to be rapidly reversed by economic sanctions: we are talking about years at best, provided sanctions are maintained. What the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, said about China in that respect is well taken. That is an area where we will have to do some work.
In addition to the kleptocracy unit, the Government and the Prime Minister are going to need a large and well-funded—properly funded—unit to chase sanctions evasion. It is certainly going to happen, particularly in a country as well practised in criminality as Russia. On the other hand, effective enforcement may well have some beneficial political effects in that it will undermine the deal that Putin made with the oligarchs that they could make and use their money freely provided that they kept out of politics. Their political neutrality will have been for nothing, so, potentially, some destabilisation of the regime may begin.
As a signatory to the Budapest memorandum, this country has a special obligation to continue to help Ukraine. We cannot, must not, just leave Ukraine to its fate. We should certainly continue to give Ukraine the aid we can, including military aid, though we must be careful not to pursue policies which merely aggravate its suffering.
As other noble Lords have said, there will be an early need for humanitarian aid, and there are going to be refugees. This country will not be on the front line in terms of numbers, but I trust that in the case of those who want to come to the UK, there will not be prolonged arguments as to whether they qualify to do so or whether they can be allowed to work here.
What has happened has much wider significance, of course, than the events in Ukraine, serious and extensive as these are. As other noble Lords have noted, the story of Putin tearing up the paper on which the post-war European order has rested started in 2008 in Georgia, well before the annexation of Crimea in 2014. During that time, he had considerable evidence that the political price to be paid for illegal activity would be low. We have been very slow off the mark in countering Putin’s agenda. Sanctions and reinforcing the borders of NATO to prevent any further land grabs by him are a very important but belated start in reversing the price to Putin of his aggressive policies, but we have to make that price still steeper. The Government need to put more resource and effort behind their correct contention that the security of the Euro-Atlantic area is the UK’s main focus. The peace dividend is long over.
If our aim is to bring about an isolated pariah state, not only must Europe end energy dependence on Russia; we must also increase our political resilience, rendering ineffective Russian malign interference in democracy, Putin’s manipulation of our political processes, and the daily misinformation and disinformation activities of his agencies—in sum, the hybrid warfare of which Russia is such a successful exponent. Other noble Lords have mentioned this, and it is an important part of our broadening policy.
Yesterday, in the other place, the Prime Minister implied that tackling online issues could await the online safety Bill, but that is some way off. We are admittedly in for the long haul, but we cannot wait years to get going on what is a Europe-wide issue, in respect of which some countries are much more vulnerable than the UK.
So, success requires close daily co-ordination across our continent. Ad hoc UK co-operation with the rest of Europe in pursuit of our wider security goals will not be adequate to achieve our aims. We need daily, close, structured co-operation with both the Governments and the institutions of the rest of Europe.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, in light of the one issue I intend to speak about, I draw attention to my interests in the register, particularly that I am the chair of the European Leadership Network and that I have a consultancy contract with, as well as being the vice-chair of, the Nuclear Threat Initiative. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who has made a wise and well-informed speech.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I apologise to the noble Baroness. I will start again. With some trepidation now, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, on an excellent maiden speech. I do not think that any of us who have known him in the many other important positions he has held are surprised that it was an excellent speech, to be candid. I thank him for his service and I look forward to his future contributions to your Lordships’ House.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will have profound consequences for the security of all Europe and beyond, as many noble Lords have said. Putin’s resort to force sets Russia-West relations back by decades and it may be longer than decades before we can unwind the damage done. It is a totally unjustified attack. Among other things, it is a gross violation of Article 2 of the UN charter, which commits Russia to respect the “sovereign equality” of other states, to settle disputes peacefully and to refrain from
“the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.
We stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people. Those who believe in democracy and the international rule of law and who are peacemakers support the harshest sanctions against those responsible for this outrage and its inevitable tragic consequences, which are now playing out, hour by hour, on our television sets.
In recent years, we have lost important conventional and nuclear arms control agreements that grew out of the Cold War and helped to end it. Neglect of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, designed to prevent major force build-ups on the continent; withdrawal from the Treaty on Open Skies, which provided transparency about military capabilities and movements, and from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was designed to prevent an unconstrained offence/defence arms race; and non-compliance with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which reduced the danger of nuclear war in Europe, have exacerbated a downward spiral of mistrust between Russia and the West. As a result, co-operation between the parties has eroded, concerns about military capabilities have grown and, consequently, the risk of miscalculation is heightened. Terrible and shocking as the unprovoked, unjustified criminal invasion of Ukraine by Russia is, worse still is the possibility that this invasion might escalate to global thermonuclear war—it really could do so.
On 3 January, the leaders of the five nuclear weapons states issued a joint statement titled
“On Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races”.
While they—even Putin—agree that
“a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”—
namely, that nuclear war serves no rational purpose—the mere fact that no one plans to fight a nuclear war over Ukraine does not mean that it cannot happen. It does not mean that it will happen; that is, to some degree, up to us and the decisions we make. While the Russian alert status has apparently not been raised, the annual strategic Grom drills of nuclear-capable missiles that took place on Saturday conveyed quite a different message, one of nuclear threat, and Putin has made statements that make such an escalation more credible.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, reminded us, Putin’s chilling warning to the West early yesterday morning on Russian TV, when he said—I paraphrase—that anyone who tries to interfere with Russia will suffer consequences such as they have never experienced before in their history, was bad enough. We are all very familiar with these words because they have been played out again and again on our television sets, but we are less familiar with the fact that he added something even worse:
“As for the military sphere, modern Russia, even after the collapse of the USSR and the loss of a significant part of its potential, is today one of the most powerful nuclear powers in the world and, moreover, has certain advantages in a number of the latest types of weapons. In this regard, no one should have any doubts that a direct attack on our country will lead to defeat and dire consequences for any potential aggressor.”
During the Cold War, when the fear of nuclear war was taken so seriously, words that could potentially pave the way for nuclear war were avoided. It appears that now at least one man has forgotten that fear and those words can be uttered.
In that context, where, as my noble friend Lord West said, the tripline for escalation is set so low, consequential war between Russia and NATO forces—war involving NATO allies such as Poland, the Baltic states or Hungary —could very easily escalate to war involving, first, tactical and, finally, strategic nuclear force. In the days and weeks ahead, leaders in London, Moscow and Washington and throughout Europe must be careful to avoid new and destabilising military deployments, close encounters between Russian and NATO forces and the introduction of offensive weapons that undermine common security. There will be a natural and understandable reaction in the West to isolate Russia, cutting off direct communication and interactions. But at this moment of high military tension, communication, arms control and continuing space for diplomacy are more important than ever for effective deterrence.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I start by adding my warm congratulations to my noble friend Lord Sedwill on his excellent and perceptive maiden speech, with which I entirely agree.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did not begin yesterday, but in 2014. The seizure of Crimea and the involvement of Russian forces in the Donbass region pointed clearly to Putin’s contempt for international law and national sovereignty. What a pity we did not respond sufficiently robustly then. This most recent escalation, in the face of all diplomatic attempts to avert it, has, I hope, laid to rest the lie that Putin is simply concerned about and reacting to the so-called threat from NATO. It has long been obvious for those with eyes to see or to read Putin’s own words that his objective is to return Ukraine to the status of a Russian fiefdom. Nor should we delude ourselves that he will stop with Ukraine: if he is successful there, he will turn his eyes to other countries that were once part of the Soviet empire. It is therefore crucial that he is prevented from gaining his objective in Ukraine.
The Ukrainian people are paying the price of Putin’s aggression and rightly have our sympathy. But let us also remember the poor Russian conscripts who are being made to shed their blood by the deranged actions of a gangster regime that plunders the resources of its country for personal benefit, mounts assassinations in other countries as well as its own, interferes in the democratic processes of other nations, and bullies, invades and kills its neighbours. Those parts of the international community that care about peace and freedom and stand for a rules-based order within which all can thrive can no longer ignore or excuse the threat that Putin poses to this continent.
So what is to be done? In the short term, we must of course impose robust, targeted and enduring sanctions that enjoy wide support in the international community, in Europe and beyond. That will not be easy. Such sanctions will harm those imposing them, some much more so than the UK. Mustering the necessary international resolve and endurance is likely to tax our diplomatic skills to the limit. Sanctions will not, however, be enough. Putin will fail in Ukraine only if the Ukrainian people continue to resist and engage him in an unconventional military campaign that is protracted and costly. This is their intention, but do they have the wherewithal? We cannot fight for them, but we can and should give them all the indirect military support we can to enable them to carry on the fight.
We must also learn the strategic lessons of this conflict. Not long ago, some observers were questioning the continued relevance of NATO. In part, this was because they saw future threats to the security of Europe as originating principally from outside the continent. Even the UK’s integrated review, while acknowledging the challenge still posed by Russia, indicated a tilt more towards the Asia-Pacific region. The peace and security of our own continent should always be our top priority. Even those who did not foresee a threat to European peace—and many of us did—should remember the unbounded capacity of the future to surprise us, usually in unpleasant ways. NATO remains the bedrock of European security and must be strengthened.
However, we have strategic weaknesses that must now be addressed urgently. Globalisation, for all its benefits, has brought with it significant vulnerabilities. The economic, commercial and societal dependencies that can result from such globalisation make it more difficult for us to respond appropriately to international crises when they involve nations on whom we rely for goods and services. It is neither possible nor desirable for us to turn back the clock completely in this regard, but we need to strike a much better balance between commercial benefits and national resilience.
The Prime Minister has spoken about the need for the West to wean itself off Russian oil and gas, and that is right. However, that scratches only the surface of the problem. What about the rare earth metals that are so important to modern technology? What about other resources on which UK industry relies, such as titanium for Rolls-Royce aero engines, 20% of which has been supplied by Russia?
This is not just about Russia. Putin is the source of the current crisis, but we are vulnerable in other parts of the world. If we are to stand up to China’s assault on the rules-based international order, as the integrated review claims we will, we cannot leave ourselves vulnerable to Chinese economic industrial or technological intimidation.
The immediate priority is to offer Ukraine all the support we can and to help mobilise international efforts in this regard. However, we must also learn the strategic lessons and ensure that we are better placed in future to stand up to threats to international peace and security.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the superb speech from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I start my own remarks with a light note on which I will not continue. I congratulate my female colleagues, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and my noble friends Lady Kramer and Lady Smith of Newnham, on their sartorial display of solidarity with the Ukrainian people in their blue and yellow. Sadly, I have neither colour in my wardrobe.
I heard the former head of MI6 on the radio this morning saying that hindsight is a wonderful thing. Well, we have known for a very long time that Putin was a thug who brooked no opposition and had his opponents and critics murdered, including Alexander Litvinenko here in London and Bill Browder’s lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, both back in 2009. It did not need hindsight to worry about Russian oligarchs with close Kremlin links being allowed not only to flaunt their wealth in their London playground and extend their establishment influence here in the UK but to be celebrated in some quarters for it. Putin’s cronies have been getting away with it for years, with successive Governments turning a blind eye. We must stop this rot in our midst and vow never to allow the UK’s subordination to dodgy money to happen again. As writer Oliver Bullough, who knows a thing or two about these matters, said:
“I’m trying to think of a good three-word slogan for my proposals of finding out who owns the shell companies that own our capital city, who’s behind the money laundering schemes, and resourcing the police so it can investigate crimes thus exposed.”
His suggestion for that slogan is—you guessed—“Take Back Control”.
The football authorities have stopped the Champions League final taking place in St Petersburg. The spotlight now turns to the Formula 1 authorities to stop the grand prix, which is due to take place in Russia in September. Can the Minister tell us what representations the Government are making to that effect?
Many thousands of Ukrainians have headed to the borders following the Russian invasion. Slovakia has opened its borders and is allowing every Ukrainian to enter Slovakia, even without a passport. Poland will be receiving many Ukrainian refugees. Ireland has waived visa requirements on Ukrainians. Meanwhile, here, it is bitterly ironic that on Monday we will be debating Report on the Nationality and Borders Bill, one provision of which is the criminalisation of anyone who reaches these shores without a visa.
Our Home Secretary has extended visas for Ukrainians who are already here, which is welcome, but has not set up any routes for most Ukrainian refugees to reach UK shores. The UK has stopped accepting visa applications from Ukrainians stuck in the country, and even family members of British citizens can apply only in Lviv or in a neighbouring country. This means there is no safe and legal route for most Ukrainians to seek asylum in Britain. Will the noble Lord now tell us that the Home Secretary will have a rethink on that?
This is an occasion when the cut in the aid budget is felt most acutely. However, of course we as individuals can contribute in a personal capacity to funds run by the Ukrainian community in this country for their families and friends in Ukraine, and Yale professor Timothy Snyder has given a list of NGOs. I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, who in his excellent speech called for bodies such as the BBC World Service to be supported to play a major role to counter disinformation and to assist those brave Russians standing up against warmongering.
I understand that the UK is calling for Russia to be excluded from SWIFT. Can the Minister offer an insight into the opposition of our EU partners to doing that? If only we were there in Brussels to argue the case for tougher decisions. This crisis is a perfect example of our reduced influence since we left the EU, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, has said, and indeed of our not seeking any continuing role in the institutional architecture of EU foreign security and sanctions policy. The boast of “global Britain” looks more than a little hollow when it consists of reintroducing blue passports and imperial measurements rather than helping Europe speak with one voice.
One essential element of our longer-term strategy must be to make this country as sound and robust in its liberal democracy as it possibly can be, to equip us, with our allies, to be a beacon to the world for liberal values, and to work as closely as possible with those who share them in order to demonstrate to rogue states such as Russia, and their peoples, not only that might is not right but that their aspirations deserve freedom, democracy and human rights.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I was in Moscow in 1968 when the Soviet army put down Dubček, and I feel the same cold horror today that I felt then. However, this is much worse than 1968. In 1991, over 90% of the population of Ukraine voted for independence, with large majorities even in all those regions where there is a strong ethnic Russian population. Our locus to object is far stronger now than it was in 1968. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned the Budapest memorandum; it carries the signatures of John Major and Douglas Hurd. In it, the Russians promised that they would respect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within its existing borders.
The question is: could we have done more to avert this disaster? I doubt it. Looking at the paranoia and posturing in the Kremlin, I do not think there is much more we could have done. However, there are lessons to be learned of continuing validity as the crisis continues.
First, on sanctions, the best ones are those that deter. However, in order to achieve deterrence, you have to be ahead of the game and you have to go for scale and specificity. The first UK sanctions package totally failed the test of scale, and we are still failing the test of specificity. I do not believe that the Kremlin has paused for a second to consider what we have said about sanctions.
Secondly, we are talking only about sanctioning Russian exports. It is a very difficult thing to do, given that there is a world market in hydrocarbons. What is much easier to do and would have much more impact on the Russians is to sanction their strategic imports. Russia is even more an oil and gas economy now than it was when Putin came in, despite all his welcome early talk of modernising the economy. It has gone backwards. Its manufacturing sector has declined, which means that it is more vulnerable today to controls on the exports of sensitive technology to it than it was then. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was quite right when he spoke of reinventing CoCom—global controls on strategic exports. We seem to be going back to the Cold War—okay, we needed that instrument in the Cold War and we need it again now.
I have very little more to offer. I support everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, in a masterly maiden speech. I should like particularly to add my voice to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. Here I slightly part company with the noble Lord, Lord McDonald.
The detaching of Luhansk and Donetsk from Ukraine wins no plaudits in Beijing. Beijing has never recognised Abkhazia and Ossetia. Beijing is rather against the idea of breakaway provinces. Installing a puppet government in Kyiv will alarm not just the Baltic states, Moldova, Armenia and Georgia but an awful lot of Azeris, Kazakhs, Tajiks and Turkmen. This is not a crisis of Putin versus the West; this is not a crisis of Putin versus NATO; this is a crisis of Putin versus the world. We need now to be talking to all those in the former Soviet empire who are uneasy about the idea of the attempted recreation of the Soviet empire and all those in the developing world who are uneasy about what they see as the invasion of an independent state that voted by an overwhelming majority for independence. They are inclined to hope that maybe the world can do something about it. We need to be talking to all our Commonwealth friends and we need to be talking globally. This is not just Putin versus the West; this is Putin versus the world.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, on his notable maiden speech. His eloquence matches the authority that he brings to the subject. I also share the views initially expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, but by others as well, that what frightens Putin is the example that democracy on his borders sets to the people of Russia. The combination of fear of democracy on his borders on the one hand and the desire to recreate the empire of Stalin and the tsars on the other makes for a very dangerous combination. No wonder the Baltic states are worried, and others too. I refer particularly to the Baltic states because they are members of NATO, with all that that implies.
I strongly agree with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, that sanctions need to be more than anticipated, greater than was feared. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howell that what has been done so far is inadequate and more needs to be done. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, that when the sanctions regime is applied in its full force, it must be sustained and not weakened. When it comes to the application of sanctions, a particular responsibility rests on the shoulders of this country and Germany: in the case of Germany, because of its dependence on energy from and trade with Russia, and on this country because of the warm welcome we have extended to the Russian oligarchs and to Russian money. It is very important, if our voice is to carry credibility in the counsels of the West, in decisions about what should be done, that we should be seen to be applying the full rigour of sanctions to the people who have banked their money, spent their money, bought property and sought to exercise political influence in London. It is very important that nobody should feel that we are dragging our heels in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord McDonald, made a very important point when he said that the country must understand the price that we will have to pay for sanctions. This is not just a matter of the banks, financial institutions, estate agents, public schools and all the other beneficiaries of Russian money, the management of the economy will become much more difficult. Energy supplies will become much more expensive. Inflation will become more difficult to control. Supply chains will become more disrupted. It is very important that the Prime Minister should be absolutely clear and frank with the British people about the price that we will have to pay if these sanctions are to be successful. It is all very well to talk about the wickedness of Putin and how we will stand up to him, but the British people need to understand that, if we are to stand up to him, a price will have to be paid. Unless this point is made clear to the British people, Putin will not take seriously our resolve.
I have just two more points to make. First, we have already supplied Ukraine with weapons, and the anti-tank weapons are very good ones; we must be ready to supply more as and when they are required and to do whatever we can to sustain the Ukrainians in whatever form of warfare they are able to carry out. It is also very important that we should be willing to provide humanitarian assistance on a massive scale, both within Ukraine and to those who are fleeing Ukraine. We must do all we can to alleviate suffering there. Finally, in everything we do, we need to make it clear that our quarrel is with Mr Putin and not with the Russian people.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, we are all Ukrainians today, in the same way that we were all Czechs and Poles in the face of Hitler, we were all Berliners in the face of Stalin, and we were all Bosnians and Kosovars in the face of Milošević. We share a common humanity, and a common interest as democratic Europeans in checking invasion, imperialism and tyranny.
In Putin, we are dealing with the latest of the great dictators: part rational, part megalomaniac, a wholly cynical and brutish menace to humanity and peaceful relations between states. He may be economically weaker than Hitler and Stalin, but with a nuclear arsenal and a mastery of modern cyberwarfare, he poses threats which even they did not pose. The only solution is his departure, and the only palliative is containment and the maximum possible strength and unity among the democracies he threatens. That is all of us in Europe, starting with his neighbours but not confined to them—as we in Britain know from his chemical weapons attack in Salisbury and Russian disruption of our democratic events and institutions.
Looking back critically, the mistake we made was of demonstrating insufficient strength. The idea that it would have been right, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, to force the new democracies of central and eastern Europe to be neutral when they wanted freely to join the EU and NATO, is now obviously misguided. If Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were not in the EU and NATO, what is happening to Ukraine today would probably be happening to them too, and may already have happened.
In respect of Ukraine, we clearly failed in the weakness of our response to the annexation of Crimea eight years ago. The sanctions and preventive measures we are discussing today should have been taken then. We should have moved immediately to isolate and weaken Putin in the same way that we did the equally despicable and dangerous Iranian regime after it, too, started to destabilise Europe from its borders. Part of the reason we did not—and why Ukraine did not become more integrated into the European system—was intense Russian destabilisation, which some people in high European counsels who should know better foolishly and very naively and condescendingly said was evidence of Ukraine’s unsuitability to become part of the very European institutions which might have enabled it to survive and grow as a free and independent democracy.
On the crisis we now face, every speaker in this debate has agreed that sanctions must be for real. As the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, said in his extremely able and powerful speech, for sanctions to work, they have to be far bigger and more immediate than Putin is expecting. Chancellor Scholz showed commendable leadership when he announced on the day of the invasion that Nord Stream 2 will be cancelled, but the fact that, four days later, Europe’s leaders cannot even agree to exclude Russia from SWIFT and other international payments systems, as we did Iran years ago, is a bad sign. This should happen immediately as part of a Russian trade embargo, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, obviously must include Gazprom.
Our Government have a particular responsibility to promote financial sanctions because so many of them apply to transactions and investments in London. Thousands of Putin’s cronies should have their UK assets frozen or seized. The operation in the United Kingdom of all Russian banks, financial institutions and state companies—not just a handful—should be disabled. If we could stop Napoleon trading with and through Britain, we can certainly stop Putin.
It is all the more important that we in the UK take the lead on these financial measures—at the price of real pain, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said—because our continental European partners need to do the same in respect of their energy dependence on Russia, although, with our own oil and gas reserves in the North Sea, we have a vital part to play here, too. Nord Stream 2 is only the start of the change that is needed to prevent Putin holding Europe to ransom; it has to start now.
We should also offer immediate asylum to all technically qualified Russian personnel, as the United States did after 1945. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said in his immensely powerful speech, militarily and logistically, we should reassert the North Atlantic Treaty’s Article 5 guarantee to NATO’s 30 members, and we should support Ukrainian resistance so that Putin faces in Kyiv what Brezhnev faced in Kabul: an increasingly debilitating, costly and unpopular guerrilla war with mounting losses of Russian life and prestige.
In his heartfelt address to the Russian people yesterday, delivered in Russian, President Zelensky said:
“We know for sure that we don’t want war. Neither cold, hot, or hybrid. But, if we are threatened; if someone is trying to take away our country, our freedom, our lives … We are going to defend ourselves.”
Today, we are all Ukrainians.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Adonis; it was also a pleasure to be in the Chamber to listen to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill.
May I start by saying how much I agree with other speakers in condemning the abhorrent actions of the Russian state? An unprovoked invasion of a peaceful, democratic Ukraine by an aggressive, expansionist Russian state is a step back to the dark ages of the previous century. My heart goes out to the people of Ukraine. I applaud the unqualified support for Ukraine that has been voiced by our Government. I hope, however, that we will go much further and faster on sanctions.
Today, I want to bring up just three issues: Chernobyl, energy and refugees. We heard yesterday that the Chernobyl power plant had been captured by the Russians. Reuters news agency quoted an adviser to President Zelensky as saying:
“Russia wants to control the Chernobyl nuclear reactor to signal NATO not to interfere militarily.”
Perhaps it is also intended to reinforce symbolically the thinly veiled threat to go nuclear, as a number of noble Lords have said. We also heard from other sources yesterday that the reason for the fight for the Chernobyl site and associate exclusion zone is that it is strategically placed to make a speedier advance on Kyiv. Can the Minister comment on our Government’s assessment of why Russia would want to prioritise taking the Chernobyl site?
Although we are physically dependent on Russia for only 3% of our gas supply, it is nevertheless a fact that the global price is somewhat more affected by Russian gas. As of yesterday, UK wholesale gas prices were up by about 70% compared to mid-February, as a direct result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I bring this up because there is now an organised group within the Government’s Back Benches—the so-called net zero scrutiny group—which is intent on spreading what I can only describe as misinformation in suggesting that the solution to the rising price of gas is to increase production in gas fields located in the North Sea. It ignores the fact that gas is a global commodity, the price of which is skyrocketing, and that UK fields are licensed to overseas producers that will trade the gas on the global markets, as they are bound to do.
Does the Minister agree that such misinformation must be challenged? The truth is that the increased production of indigenous renewable energy is the way to independence from rogue regimes such as Russia. Also, may I suggest to the Government that now is the time to lift the effective moratorium on onshore wind? It is the cheapest form of energy source for the UK, as the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, himself noted from the Dispatch Box not so long ago.
I want to ask the Minister about the Government’s intended support for Ukrainian refugees, who will be arriving in neighbouring countries to Ukraine in increasingly large numbers. Will we offer them support commensurate with the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme? However, although that scheme initially appeared to be well designed, I do not think the Minister will demur if I say that its execution has been less than satisfactory, with many families still trapped in small hotel rooms, waiting to be properly resettled and without the settled immigration status that the Government promised. Can the Minister say how the Government are working with humanitarian agencies and Ukraine’s neighbours to provide accommodation and support to the people now fleeing Russian troops?
Lastly, how do the Government think the Nationality and Borders Bill will help Ukrainians? Is it not clearer than ever that its provisions will criminalise desperate people forced into desperate measures to safeguard themselves and their families, and has no place in a civilised country?
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
Yesterday was a sad, bad day for Ukraine, Europe and the world. First, our feelings are of course with the Ukrainian people, who are in for a prolonged period of struggle and suffering.
I fully support everything that the Government are doing by way of sanctions. Whether the sanctions should be more than they are, I leave to other people who are better qualified than me. Put simply, they will have to be applied not just massively and rigorously but over a potentially long period. Putin has built up a war chest of some $630 billion to see him through the immediate effects of sanctions. Then, of course, his policy is to create facts on the ground and see whether he gets away with it if he holds on long enough.
Russian forces are still in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, camped only 20 miles from Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia. Even now, a long time after the 2008 war, they are still in Crimea; of course, they were also in eastern Europe for a long time. Putin will create facts on the ground and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, said, the likely scenario of a puppet Government means that this will last perhaps years, even decades. The question is: have we the will and the staying power to keep going for a long period and not allow everything from Putin’s point of view simply to go back to business more or less as normal?
The invasion of Ukraine by Putin creates a tragic dilemma, which I call the nuclear paradox. Massive arsenals of nuclear weapons owned by NATO and Russia make a major nuclear war morally impossible yet, at the same time, make acts of aggression below that more possible. We have that kind of situation in Ukraine. President Biden has said, no doubt rightly, that we will not be putting troops into Ukraine, which simply leaves us with sanctions. The question is not only whether those sanctions will be massive and rigorously applied but whether we are prepared to sustain them for a long period.
One of the features of the crisis over recent months that I have found particularly distressing is the amount of totally false information that has been fed to the Russian people—the number of grotesque lies, as other noble Lords have said. Sadly, despite some heroic resistance to the Putin regime, his popularity in Russia has remained high. We do not know what it will be after the invasion of Ukraine, but I would not be surprised if that massive state propaganda machine has twisted the minds of so many people. This brings to the fore the importance of truth in public life. No doubt every power has its own form of propaganda; that is inevitable. However, if we have a free press and media, at least in the long run those lies can be exposed for what they are. We do stand for something worthwhile, which in the end comes down to truth in the public sphere.
Ukraine has been carved up and divided between many empires over the centuries: Polish-Lithuanian, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and Tsarist. However, both in 1917, before the Soviets took over, and at the end of the Cold War in 1991, it voted decisively for its own autonomy to rule its own affairs. It is quite true, as Putin rightly emphasises, that there are long historic, cultural and religious links between Ukraine and Russia. Orthodox Christianity came to Russia from Kyivan Rus’. Yet invading a country is hardly the way to strengthen those historic, cultural and religious links.
Finally, I return to my first point. I have often returned to the words that TS Eliot wrote in 1939, reflecting on the events of 1938 in Munich. He said that he and many others were shaken in a way from which one does not recover. It was not so much the politics and the events but a general plight. It was not the criticism of a particular Government but a doubt about the validity of a particular civilisation. Did our society,
“which had always been so assured of its superiority and rectitude”,
have
“any beliefs more essential than a belief in compound interest and the maintenance of dividends?”
The struggle from 1939 to 1945 showed that we did. Today, with the direct use of military force rightly ruled out, that question will be even more searching now than it was then.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, who speaks with great wisdom and insight—as did the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, in a very remarkable maiden speech.
When I heard this chilling news yesterday morning in the first half of the “Today” programme, my mind went back to a day in the autumn of 1956, when my father woke me to say that the Russians were firing phosphorous shells into Budapest. That provoked me into joining a political party, in a democracy, to play a part. I duly came to the other place in 1970 and became chairman of the campaign for the release of Soviet Jewry. I was talking to one young man on the eve of his bar mitzvah as the KGB were knocking on the door.
Some 25 years later, in 1989, I took part in a communion service in the Hotel Oktiabrskaya in Moscow, in the shadow of the Kremlin, where they always used to put up the delegations from eastern Europe. I was able to present to Mr Gorbachev’s chef de cabinet, Andrei Grachev, a copy of the Bible, symbolic of a million that we were giving to a small group that had formed liaisons within the then Soviet Union. I could not help but reflect on those words of Wordsworth’s, written in a very different setting:
“Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive”—
even though I was perhaps not all that young.
Later that year, I was one of a group who chaired sessions in the Peace Palace of the Hague, composed of parliamentarians from the different constituent republics of the Soviet Union. We felt that a new era had dawned. It was something very remarkable, as it was when I took a group of Members of both Houses to Czechoslovakia, as it then was, in 1991. We met the great Mr Dubček. The world seemed to have changed. In a very remarkable speech, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, talked about his meetings with Mr Putin, at a time when it looked as though he might hold the torch for freedom—but we have now descended into the darkest days of the most desperate Tsars. Yesterday was a demonstration of that.
In this context, we cannot use hard power. We have not actually got very much to use. There is no point in rattling sabres if all you have are scabbards. However, we do have very real soft power, and it is an independent soft power, best exemplified perhaps by the BBC World Service. So I ask the Minister to give a guarantee today that no money will be spared to expand broadcasting services not only in Russia but throughout the former Soviet republics, many of which Mr Putin appears to have his eyes on. It is important that people know the truth, know what is happening, know exactly the measure of the dictator who is now behaving with such appalling savagery towards an innocent people.
It is also important that we take note of two points that were made during this very interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, in his excellent speech, talked of how necessary it was that we who are in free Europe should work as one. Brexit is over, but we must forge a new, powerful relationship with the countries of the European Union—all the countries of Europe who believe in democracy and freedom. He was wise to say that. The noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Dannatt, talked, also in the context of broadcasting, about making sure that those who live under threat, and those who live in Russia itself, know that democracy alone can prevail, and that dictatorship has no future other than misery.
It is good that we have had this debate. I very much hope that the united voice of your Lordships’ House will be conveyed.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, on his speech and welcome him to the House of Lords.
Around the world, we watch the fear and violence in Ukraine. Our hearts go out to all of them. I welcomed the Prime Minister’s Statement last night, but at the same time he did not mention aid and I felt he did not go far enough on the whole question of sanctions. I congratulate noble Lords on the Liberal Benches on what they had to say on sanctions. They are really important.
As the crisis in Ukraine escalates, it is important to hear the voices of women on the ground, as well as global experts. Last week, I attended a meeting convened by the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, which stands with the people of Ukraine, especially the women peacebuilders who have been struggling for their freedom, democracy and integration in Europe. We simply must amplify their calls to action. Leading up to this terrible situation, they worked on the ground with other NGOs to provide economic and financial support to Ukraine and to ensure that aid is given to those women who are working in Afghanistan—I am so sorry, in Ukraine; I usually make speeches about Afghanistan.
The majority of SME workers in Ukraine are women. With Covid and the present situation, they are unable to be helped. They are the breadwinners of those families, as we know. I hope all the international aid, and aid from this country, has a gender and family lens.
We must ensure that there is monitoring and accountability of internal actors. The OSCE and other third-party organisations must closely monitor and report on the human rights situation. They must prepare and publish a joint statement on how security threats affect the women in Ukraine, since we know what has happened to women close by in Belarus.
We must ensure women’s participation and leadership. Those assessing and reporting on the current security situation are almost exclusively men. We as a country have promised that we will try to ensure that there is 50:50 representation in these sorts of situations, otherwise women will be erased from the crisis narrative, which will hinder their ability to prepare. We must advance inclusion security. Gender should be mainstream in all internationally supported programmes, and security responses in Ukraine and the OSCE should create a regional action plan on Resolution 1325.
We should support civil society, including those international and local NGOs working on the ground, such as the International Rescue Committee. Women’s rights organisations and activists should be supported through targeted funding. We should train and provide mentorship to them from afar, and when this tragedy is over.
We should engage regional and international allies to leverage unprecedented co-operation from ourselves, the United States and our European partners, and maybe as far as Australia and New Zealand. We must raise awareness through the media, such as the World Service and other media platforms we talked about earlier.
I call on the Home Office to publish an urgent plan outlining how the United Kingdom can offer safe and legal passage to people fleeing Ukraine. We must absolutely do this, and I call on the Minister to make sure this will happen, because nothing has happened at all. I do not want to see what has happened to other refugees happen to those in Ukraine.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, yesterday we woke to a new era of war in Europe, made all the more shocking by Putin’s implied threat to use nuclear weapons if his forces are interfered with—a tactic that is consistent with the Russian army’s tactical doctrine of first use of nuclear weapons.
We must be very clear that this new and unprovoked war in Europe has been initiated and caused by Putin’s expansionist ambitions, which will in time almost inevitably see him indicted as a war criminal. Britain has followed its great tradition of standing up to dictators in Europe, and quite rightly is leading the western world in its support of Ukraine with our anti-tank weapons, which have so far been very effective in destroying Putin’s tanks. However, I fear that Britain may become a target for Putin’s threat of retaliation for those who interfere in the Ukraine crisis.
Although Putin is the aggressor, I fear that our Government have failed to learn the lesson of history meted out by past dictators who have started world wars that have led to rivers of blood. The lesson is simple: the way to deter conflict is to increase our military capabilities. That point has been made by several noble Lords. Over the past 10 years of Putin’s increasing aggression and hostility, we have seen similar expansionism from Premier Xi Jinping. I am seriously concerned about the possibility of China launching an attack on Taiwan. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, that our weak response to the Salisbury poisonings on British soil by the Russians exposed our vulnerabilities.
Putin’s inner psychology and objectives have been facilitated by a new positive commodities cycle feeding Russia’s war coffers. As several noble Lords have mentioned, we are not looking at a weak Russian economy that will swiftly crumble under sanctions, but a strong one, with $65 billion of reserves and a debt of 18% of GDP. That said, I fully support all the sanctions that have been proposed and I hope they will have the effect we all hope for.
I am concerned that the strategic alliance now formed between Russia and China matches Russia’s commodity production to a willing and voracious buyer whose supply lines will now be overland and no longer vulnerable to a naval blockade. This is a nightmare alliance. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that we and Europe need to reduce our dependence on Russia’s oil and gas and create a renewed energy security policy.
We need to rethink our focus on linear, reactive, non-strategic, peacekeeping thinking and replace it with lateral strategic thinking that will get us ahead of the expansionist plans of Russia and China. I entirely agree with the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, that the quarrel is with President Putin and not with the Russian people.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate and to follow the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, on his thoughtful and informative maiden speech, and look forward to his future contributions.
As many noble Lords have indicated, this is a clear assault on democracy and on the sovereign nation of Ukraine, and indeed an attack on democracy in Europe. I will be brief, as much of what needs to be said has already been said.
I spent several years based in the region during my police service. I have driven through Ukraine and wondered at its agriculturally rich country. I feel particularly passionate about the right of any sovereign eastern European nation to choose its own destiny, whether it be the European Union or NATO.
We should be alive to the fact that Putin’s ultimatum to the west, demanding written “security guarantees” that there will be no further NATO expansion eastwards, not only applies to Ukraine but may well apply to Georgia and other countries, such as Finland and Sweden. Russia does not have an exclusive right to own or control eastern European countries.
Putin has demonstrated that, for the first time in some 80 years—since our last world war—we now have a man with a megalomaniac desire to unleash tyranny on innocent civilians that has no bounds. We in the West, together with NATO, are bang on the money when we say that we will not sign the security guarantees that Putin is demanding. However, I cannot help feeling that we should have been doing more, sooner, in support of Ukraine, post Crimea in 2014, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, alluded to.
We should be awake to the prospect that a full-blown war with Ukraine, which has the third-largest army in Europe, would impact on the neighbouring states of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania and thereby present a risk of spillover into four NATO and EU member states. That would create enormous economic and political disruption, with all that entails for Europe.
However, sadly, Putin’s actions in Ukraine will have catastrophic consequences. As my noble friend Lord Hague pointed out in yesterday’s Times:
“Hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of people are going to be on the move and they are going to need a lot of looking after ... we must impose before the end of the day, the biggest and most comprehensive package of sanctions on Russia”.
I am delighted that yesterday the Prime Minister outlined that very package of economic sanctions, which he described as
“the largest and most severe package of economic sanctions that Russia has ever seen”—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/22; col. 564.]
and which will be replicated by our European and American friends. Announcing that all major Russian banks will have their assets frozen and will be excluded from the UK financial system, stopping them accessing sterling and clearing payments through the UK, is a major move in penalising Putin. Furthermore, banning Russia’s national airline Aeroflot from landing in the UK is a very positive step in our strong message to the aggressor Putin. I agree with many noble Lords that we must now root out the dirty money in all its forms in the UK.
From a humanitarian perspective, the consequences are horrific, with families fleeing their homes and having to cross borders in freezing conditions into Hungary and Romania for safety, having lost hope for their country. There is deep concern for the safety, health and well-being of all civilians impacted by the crisis, and I urge our Government to do all that they can, with other European countries, to assist refugees who now find themselves in this distressed situation. I look forward to an assurance from the Minister on this issue.
The Henry Jackson Society has recently stated that Britain and NATO should be willing to designate Russia as a terrorist state. I have long considered Putin’s Russia to be a rogue state, a state without honour or integrity. Those words are well justified in view of Putin’s lies and clear deceit leading up to the invasion. He claimed he had no intention of invading Ukraine, while in the background he was amassing troops, launching cyberattacks and staging false pretexts and provocations.
In the words of Dame Barbara Woodward at the emergency UN Security Council meeting on Ukraine:
“The world is calling for peace. But Russia is not listening.”
I thank the Government for their swift response and hope that our unwavering actions will help bring an end to Putin’s tyrannical behaviour, sooner rather than later.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely, and I invite him to speak now.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the unthinkable is happening as this tragedy unfolds. It was the danger of such conflict at the heart of Europe that motivated my three, criticised interventions in our Chamber in recent weeks. I need to make it clear that I am not some peacenik. In the Commons, I supported intervention in the Falklands, and in the case of Iraq I visited Washington on three occasions to lobby for varying forms of military intervention.
Moscow has known for weeks that there was no desire in European capitals or Washington for an interventionist military strategy. It was that division within European defence establishments that signalled weakness and lack of resolve. The moment we signalled that division, compromise was inevitable. It was with that in mind that I repeatedly called for an alternative solution that offered a way forward. I suggested that we sought to negotiate an agreed-timescale, non-NATO membership Ukraine, along with buffer-state protectorate status under Ukraine sovereignty for Donetsk and Luhansk. Mine has been a lone voice. In my view, at that stage that was the only way forward.
I believe there is a complete misunderstanding in Europe of the consequences of heaping humiliation on a proud Russian people and a volatile Putin who fears democracy, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, said. They are a people riddled with insecurity following the loss of 25 million in the Second World War. That loss still breeds insecurity throughout Russia, a factor Russia’s leadership feeds on. It has been inevitable since the fall of the Soviet Union that Russia would seek to secure protection from an illusory NATO threat from behind a barrier of buffer states—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts—stretching from Finland in the north, through Belarus to Crimea in the south, the only countries excluded from this defensive strategy being Estonia and Latvia, which, strategically and militarily, are of little consequence. While all these developments have been taking place in recent years, Russia has constructed a new trading relationship with China while concentrating its western trade on oil supply, knowing the theatre: the greater the dependence, the less likelihood of obstruction of its foreign policy aims. The strategy could be said to have worked. We are now paying the price for our misplaced trust and naivety.
However, that is all in the past. Where do we go from here? We should proceed with caution. Putin is seeking to put in place a puppet regime. We should avoid precipitate action and plan, but not yet implement, much of the programme of penalties proposed in yesterday’s Statement to Parliament, which I support. We need to give Putin’s people time to reflect and consider the potential response of their own people to international condemnation. While Russia is perfectly capable of withstanding unimaginable levels of suffering, common sense may well ultimately prevail among its people, many of whom have a close affinity with people in the West. I do not believe that the Russian people want the indefinite occupation of Ukraine.
I believe that with the threat of onerous sanctions and with the settlement I have previously outlined—to repeat: no NATO membership for Ukraine and an agreement on sensitive treatment of Russian minorities in the eastern provinces under protectorate status within an independent Ukraine—we might be able to end this confrontation. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, I am not convinced that an erratic Putin is trying to rebuild the former Soviet Union of satellite states. He wants buffer states. We all need to understand the internal contradictions, strains and anxieties that hold modern Russia together. Conflict would be a heavy price to pay for us all when an alternative way forward may still offer a glimmer of hope.
In light of recent events, our defence position under a strong NATO has my support. In terms of popular support in Russia, I suspect Mr Putin is about to meet his Waterloo.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests noted in the register, particularly those at Oxford with the Changing Character of War Centre and the Centre for the Resolution of Intractable Conflict. I thank my colleagues there for some very helpful conversations in recent days about the current crisis.
It is ironic and appropriate that our sitting today was opened by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, whose diocese and city stand as a symbol and reminder of the horror and destruction of war, as well as of the better spirit that can help us through it. I fear that today we may be looking down a long, dark tunnel, not just for the people of Ukraine but for all of us in Europe and much more widely. In the few minutes at my disposal, I will not focus so much on the immediate moves that have been and need to be made, but on the deeper and wider consequences and perspectives that we should consider.
The first is what we have been describing as sanctions, but which is actually economic warfare. The word “sanctions” implies an authority that imposes punishment consequent on the breach of rules. The global authority to which we should be able to look to impose, or at least approve, such sanctions is the Security Council of the United Nations, and it cannot do so. For years, the United States has shown less than full regard for the UN, and not only is Russia one of the other permanent, veto-wielding powers and is not going to vote for sanctions against itself but it is clear from statements in the past 24 hours that China is not prepared to use its vote to put pressure on Russia. This means that we do not have a functioning rules-based global order. That rules-based order is broken, and we do not know how, or even whether, it can be fixed.
More locally, the European project that emerged from the wreckage of the last world war seems to have been based on the assumption that such an international rules-based order could be maintained without the substantial military power that would protect it from internal and external threats. When, some years ago, I was invited to speak at the German military academy, I was deeply dismayed to discover that Germany simply had no serious military capacity—a situation confirmed in recent days by a senior figure in the German military.
Indeed, apart from the limited and somewhat hollowed -out capacities of Britain and France, Europe does not really have the ability to protect itself without the NATO umbrella provided largely by the United States of America. This is a fundamental weakness that cannot be repaired quickly, and cannot be repaired at all unless there is an acceptance in our understanding of human nature that, while there are human beings on this earth, there will be not only the possibility but the inevitability of war. It will never be a thing of the past, especially if we do not have both the will and the means to maintain a relative degree of peace, freedom and order.
I will set aside the question of full kinetic warfare with Russia, not because it is impossible or even unlikely but because it is a question for another day—one that must take into account the clear and serious threat of a nuclear response, as voiced by President Putin.
I return to sanctions and what they mean. Since, as I say, there is no globally accepted authority to which we can turn in this situation, we are talking about economic warfare. We can, as we have, implement a ban on the Russian airline Aeroflot. But the next day, Russia imposes a ban not only on British Airways but on any airline operating from the United Kingdom. We call for a ban on products. How will our farmers manage, for example, if 80% of the world production of ammonium nitrate is under Mr Putin’s control?
Thankfully, Germany has put a hold on Nord Stream 2, but it is not even operational so does not have an immediate impact on current supplies of gas. On the other hand, when we call for a blockade on Russia’s access to SWIFT, what is the immediate impact when Germany cannot use that mechanism, as it currently does, to pay for its current gas supplies? Given that our people have been suffering from high energy prices—there has been much debate on it in recent weeks—it seems to me that we need to explain to our people that, in rightly going down this road, we are engaging in an inevitable tit-for-tat conflict in which we will have to accept considerable pain not for a year or two, as with Covid, but potentially for many years, for this conflict with Russia will last.
Are we able to protect our own infrastructure from the inevitable hiking up of cyberattacks, not just on this place but on our electricity, water and other utility supplies, and from the cutting of the undersea cables that facilitate internet communications? Has the Royal Navy been given instructions to board Russian vessels off our coast? Have we been talking to the Irish Government about the fact that there are Russian vessels in their waters? Are we able to board? Would this be seen as an act of kinetic warfare? We need to think about these things; otherwise, we will suddenly find ourselves sprung into a problem.
We are living in a nadir of western liberal democracy. Let us hope that we are living in a post-world war world, as we hoped, and not in a pre-world war world, as we may be.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, many years ago Zbig Brzezinski said that
“without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire.”
Since Peter the Great, Russia has craved to be part of Europe; it cannot be without Ukraine. President Zelensky said that
“in today’s world, where we live, there is no longer someone else’s war. None of you can feel safe … a war in Ukraine … is a war in Europe.”
As my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, explained so clearly, President Putin’s real fear is the encroachment of democracy on Russian borders.
My few words today concern Bulgaria, a democratic country that I have been interested in and involved with since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The unintended consequences and the present dilemma we face are what I fear. The aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine has far-reaching geopolitical consequences. It is also a provocation against the democratic countries on the eastern flank of NATO, and most importantly against countries that are less talked about but at the same time, as it may well turn out, more vulnerable to Russian provocations than those to which at present we usually give priority.
Only a few days ago, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov flagrantly questioned Bulgaria and Romania’s membership of NATO, thus putting in question the free choice of the citizens of these two NATO countries, which have long been our democratic allies. Worryingly, military activities are today being conducted closer and closer to Bulgaria and Romania.
It is a fact that in the very first hours of the Russian aggression, most of the victims fell around the city of Odessa, to the south of which live 300,000 members of a Bulgarian minority closely related to Bulgaria. Any moment now, we could expect a huge humanitarian crisis and serious waves of refugees that could make our Bulgarian allies face even greater challenges. I applaud my noble friend Lord Cormack’s speech regarding the importance of the BBC World Service, since it was always a lifeline for Bulgaria before the wall came down.
It is for this reason that I call for a categorical and uttermost expression of our solidarity and support for the countries on the south edge of the eastern flank of NATO. It is tragic that the West has allowed Russia to behave in this historically barbaric way in our modern times. I urge the Minister, before it is too late, to make certain that Bulgaria, a faithful NATO ally ever since she shed her Soviet yoke, is not forgotten.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the speeches we have heard today, including the remarkable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, have eloquently described the horror we all feel at the outrage in Ukraine and the need for a united response.
Putin has shown total contempt for the West and our democratic values, but what are those values? Too often they seem financial rather than moral. The UK has made life too easy for Putin and his Kremlin cronies. The sanctions being imposed now are welcome—although the first response was embarrassingly inadequate —but, as others have said, they must go deeper and be sustained. Much of the damage has already been done, in part by a UK that welcomed Russian money, often from the most dubious sources.
There used to be reason to be proud of the City of London, its banks and its professional firms. That surely can no longer be the case. The rot set in years ago. Since 2005, 39 Russian companies have listed on the London Stock Exchange, raising $44 billion. Much of that cash has gone to enriching Putin’s apparatchiks. But there have been only three listings since 2014—most of the Russian people’s assets had already been shared around the oligarchs, parcelled up and brought to London to be turned into cash. Instead, the 24 Russian companies currently listed need to be carefully investigated.
Freezing the assets of the Russian banks is only a start. The huge fees paid to bankers, lawyers and accountants to bring companies to market seemed an incentive for them to see the best, not the worst, in those companies. Now we need to be assured that these companies properly deserve a listing on our stock market. If the answer is no, investors from the UK will suffer, but their pain will be little in comparison with that of the people of Ukraine. We need Putin and his allies to be hurt.
We also have to look at the highly commercial approach of some of our major law firms. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, was among those to point out the failings that have led to London’s reputation as the favourite laundromat for dirty money. Last month, for instance, Mishcon de Reya, one of our major law firms, was fined £232,000 for serious breaches of the money laundering rules, but my Google search for “Mishcon de Reya” and “money laundering” only brought that up as the second result; what came first was the firm’s offer of services to companies on advice on dealing with money laundering regulations. It points out that it has on its staff Russian-speaking lawyers who are ready to help.
The noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, spoke of the long-term pain that the UK may have to endure to help Ukraine. I believe that the City of London should be prepared to bear its share. It is time not just for more new regulations but for a change of culture. While our lax attitude to Russian riches has empowered Putin’s cronies, our laxness in another area has helped him destabilise the West. Russia’s interference in our election and referendum process was highlighted in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report. We now see the need for a united European approach to dealing with security issues. It may or may not be the case that Russian propaganda bots influenced the decision over Brexit, but it is now mighty clear that Russia wanted Brexit. We have to find a mechanism for engaging fully with the EU on security issues, and we have to be more vigilant in policing propaganda that attempts to influence our elections. Cyberwarfare was a reality even before the troops stormed into Ukraine, and we have to deal with it.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I extend my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, who I am sure will read this in Hansard.
I had a letter last week from Mishcon de Reya. I thought that anyone who could afford that level of lawyer did not need me, so I deleted it unread.
I would like to correct or clarify one point. A number of people have referred to Nord Stream 2. The Germans have not cancelled it; they have interrupted its approval procedure, which is quite different. If they cancelled it they would be liable for a very large sum of money, so at the moment it is just paused.
Many of us were dismayed by what happened yesterday, particularly as in endless meetings I and others have been assured that Russia had no intention of invading Ukraine. The Russian ambassador said that to me in very clear words. As I said yesterday, either his Government did not trust him enough to tell him what they were doing or he did not know what they were doing anyway. That is not a very good start for an ambassador, is it?
We should not underestimate Putin. He was very careful: he made sure from Macron, Scholz and Biden that there would be no military intervention in support of Ukraine. He is not a fool, although sometimes we think he is; on a good day he is quite shrewd. He knew that if he invaded Ukraine we would do nothing—and we have not let him down, have we? All we are doing is having debates.
There are two countries next to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, that are very different daughters; they remind me of “King Lear”. Belarus is the dutiful daughter that represses its population, denies democracy and is the subject of much angst; it is not even a member of the Council of Europe. However, I am sorry to say that Ukraine has constantly pinpricked Russia by trying to cancel the base in Crimea, trying to mandate that only Ukrainian can be spoken—which is pretty daft if you consider the number of Russian speakers there—and all sorts of other annoyances. There has been a constant pattern of difficulty between Ukraine and Russia. I saw it playing out every time I went to the Council of Europe: the Russians sat there, pretty dumb and not doing much, while Ukraine never lost an opportunity to have a go at them. I am not surprised that Russia got pretty fed up with it.
We now move on to the field of sanctions. I do not wish to rain on the parade, but sanctions do not have a very good record. If we are going to make them work then we have to study quite hard what we want to do. The only sanctions that I know of that worked were the CoCom sanctions, and that is because the US held a very close grip on the export of technologies beyond trusted friends. So I say to the Minister that we need to look carefully at how we perform the sanctions regime, because clearly the sanctions that we appear to have announced so far will not bring anyone down in a month of Sundays. They are tokenism. Until we get to grips with Russian influence and money in London, we will not get very far. It is worth remembering that there is also quite a lot of Ukrainian billionaire money in London.
I say to the Minister that we need to start from the point where we are now. The most important thing for us to do is to get a common position on the NATO members in the east, because they are different. We have to defend them. We have to assure the Baltics, Poland, Bulgaria and Romania that they are part of the family, and we defend the family. That is what our priority should be now, not only chasing the Russians but making sure that we can reassure our other friends.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I seek as always to add new points to the debate, so I will simply mark my agreement with the noble Lords who have stressed the many actions that we need to take to get our own house in order in the wake of decades of welcoming oligarchs, plutocrats and corruption into the very heart of our society. The Russia report concluded that we do not know how much influence international interference had, on elections in particular, because we have not looked. The response that I received from the Government this week when I queried the lack of an inquiry was a refusal even to engage with the issue. That cannot continue.
There is also an obvious direct influence through party-political funding. The Elections Bill is currently before your Lordships’ House. I will be tabling an amendment to see that no individual or company can donate more than £500 to a political party or campaign. That would instantly cut off one major source of influence. Why should any rich individual or company, foreign or local, be able to buy the politics they want?
Today has to be primarily about Ukraine, its people and their suffering. Yesterday I joined many Ukrainians and their friends gathered outside Downing Street. Many were huddled anxiously over their phones, connected directly to the war zone. They were calling for action, for sanctions stronger than those announced and for protection for themselves and their relatives.
I am pleased to see that the Home Secretary has announced that Ukrainians now in the UK will be able to have their visas temporarily extended or able to switch to different visa routes, but I have direct questions about other Ukrainians. Will the Government waive the family visa income requirements for a UK spouse or partner of a Ukrainian, to enable the family to live safely together here in the UK? Will they welcome Ukrainians who seek refuge here, whatever their mode of arrival?
I extend the question to dissident Russians. Many noble Lords have noted that there has been significant protest in Russia against the attack on Ukraine. We need to highlight and amplify these brave campaigns and, should the individuals be able to find a route out, offer them refuge. In that spirit, I name Sofya Rusova, co-chair of Russia’s trade union of journalists, arrested with a sign that I have seen translated as:
“War with Ukraine is Russia’s disgrace”.
It has been notable that many of the protesters have been women, which brings me to one of my main points. Even in your Lordships’ House, security debate is overwhelmingly male-dominated and fails to take into account the interests of women and girls. It is all too often seen as a matter for military and intelligence men. The infamous photo from the recent Munich security conference of a table of CEOs is entirely typical. I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, about women peacebuilders, who often do a huge amount of the work and then get pushed out of the final photos.
Women are often the key voices of opposition. I note the opposition role of human rights activist Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya in Belarus, the nation rightly mentioned by other noble Lords for its infamous role in the attack on Ukraine. In the world today, we can see that the current approach has not worked out well. It is time for a feminist foreign policy that puts women at the heart of decision-making and has the interests of all, particularly the most vulnerable, as its goal, acknowledging that no one is safe until everyone is safe.
It is time get away from what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, rightly described as “windy talk of global Britain” and from echoes of the empire’s gunboat diplomacy being trotted out in the modern world. We should be stepping up, as a supportive and collegiate member of the international community, working together with others to build security for all. Yesterday, I asked the noble Baroness the Leader of the House about the possibility of UN General Assembly action under the “uniting for peace” procedures created by Resolution 377A. She promised a report back from New York from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, so I look forward to that later. The COP climate talks, in which some of the world’s smallest nations have a major voice, can be a model here.
Time rushes on, so I have one final point to make about our use of resources for security. I doubt that anyone was surprised when the noble Lord, Lord West, proposed more spending on ships and guns, but we are of course in the age of hybrid warfare. What about spending on education in media literacy and being able to stand up against the kind of social media disinformation that has been so evident to us all? I am sure that many have seen the step-up in bots that I have seen on my Twitter feed. What about reinvestment in international aid and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said, in energy security?
As the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, outlined, we will never be safe until we have a world free of nuclear weapons, which is what the majority of the world’s countries want.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I agree with what other noble Lords have said about President Putin’s disastrous behaviour and the need for sanctions adequate to bring him and his cronies down, so I will not repeat it now.
But, if you want to know how you got to where you are, it often helps to look at where you have been. I fear that we have handled the Russian bear very short-sightedly since the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. We would not be where we are today if we had behaved more generously toward the Russian people over the last 31 years.
I regard the Russian people as my friends because, during my teenage years in the 1950s, my mentor in life was Fred Cripps, Stafford Cripps’ elder brother, who had lived in Russia for several years before the revolution in 1917. He told me that the Russian peoples were rare because, like us and the Dutch, they had a sense of humour and could laugh at themselves—so they should have been our friends, even then.
I also had the huge privilege of meeting Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in 1983, six years before the Berlin Wall came down, so I was inspired to do what I could to support his dissident network inside the Soviet Union and help a number of Soviet Jews to escape to the West. One thing that you did not do within the hearing of Aleksandr Isayevich was to say “Russia” when you meant the Soviet Union, or “Russians” when you meant Soviets.
We have behaved very foolishly towards Russia since 1989 in at least two ways. First, it really seems that we broke the promise that we gave to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand to the east if the Berlin Wall came down. Secondly, we have turned down several offers from Russia to set up free trade agreements between us, from the Atlantic to the Urals, as Putin put it in one of his offers in 2014. The EU promptly replied to this offer by offering association agreements, leading to NATO membership, to Georgia, Armenia, Moldova and Ukraine.
I know that some now deny that we promised the new Russia that NATO would not expand to the east after 1989, but they should read an article in this month’s English edition of Der Spiegel, entitled “NATO’s Eastward Expansion: Is Vladimir Putin Right?” I will put a copy in your Lordships’ Library. They should also read an article in the Mail on Sunday on 22 February by Peter Hitchens, entitled, “Why I Blame the Arrogant, Foolish West” for the crisis in Ukraine. For good measure, they should also read “We Blew Our Chance to Befriend Putin”, by Mr Rod Liddle, in the Spectator of 19 February—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)
Noble Lords laugh, but they clearly do not know this. The article puts the crisis into its broader historical context. I will put copies of both these articles in your Lordships’ Library as well, and I trust that those who have been sniggering will read them.
I have time to mention one other point on why the Russian people have been uniquely disadvantaged since 1989. None of the countries that lived under communism had access to what we call civil society—no freedom of speech, no independent judiciary, no charities, no free market, no private insurance and no democracy. When we set up our know-how funds in 1990 to help the peoples thus enslaved to recover these vital things, I served on our initiative in Poland to help the newly liberated Poles to set up a free insurance market. I was lucky because we could find Poles who remembered civil society, including life and other insurance, for example, from before 1945—before the Iron Curtain cut them off from the civilised world. So, we were able to help them to resurrect it without too much difficulty. It was not so in the then-new Russia, whose people had been deprived of civil society for another whole generation—another 45 years. So, you could not find anyone there who remembered it. So, once again, the Russian people were on the wrong side of history.
I conclude by agreeing with noble Lords who think that Putin may have taken leave even of his KGB senses, that he is not supported by the majority of the Russian people and that, if we and others can impose sanctions that are stiff enough, we may be able to bring him and his cronies down. We could then work for a new and prosperous relationship with the Russian people, who remain our natural friends.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I support the government response to the Ukrainian situation that we have seen thus far. I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, and congratulating him on his fantastic contribution—his excellent maiden speech—today. We look forward to many such contributions.
Two events close to me stand out for me. One is that my mother, having been born and brought up in Denmark, lived for a number of years under German occupation, and her generation was scarred by that experience. The second is that I was in Berlin in November 1989, the day the Berlin Wall came down. I felt the euphoria of all Germans—indeed, all Europeans —as expressed on that day.
Today, we stand in solidarity with Ukraine. What I find perhaps most deeply disturbing is that an independent sovereign nation state purely expressing the desire to join a defence organisation, NATO, and an economic organisation, the European Union, has led to the act of aggression and war that we have seen. No remarks could be more apposite than those made today by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York about the Schuman plan and the foundations of the economic community that came to be known as the Common Market and the European Union as we know it today.
I ask my noble friends in the Government to respond positively on three separate issues. One is that those countries that we know have made an application under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty will have a serious consultation on their safety and protection under Article 4—and potentially, subsequently, Article 5 of the NATO treaty. I would like to hear precisely how we intend to take seriously their concerns. I welcome the reference made by my noble friend Lady Goldie, our Defence Minister, in explaining the work of the Joint Expeditionary Force. I wish it every possible success in ensuring freedom of movement in the Baltic Sea, which is of great consequence to those countries.
I look also for recognition for the work of the 75% to 80% of fruit and vegetable growers in this country who, as we heard yesterday, are from Ukraine. They provide a fantastic service to this country and enable us to put fresh fruit and vegetables on our plates. We have to ask about the future of those Ukrainian citizens here and, more importantly, that of their counterparts, their families, in Ukraine. I would very much like to hear, as well, what assessment the Government have made of the potential consequences for food supply, given the humanitarian status of Ukraine, which can go only one way in the months ahead.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, eloquently conveyed the fears, dangers and humanitarian challenges for the refugees coming initially into Poland but from there to other parts of Europe. Following his remarks, I end by asking what specific aid the Government are planning to give to those refugees and what particular support might be given to Poland and other neighbouring countries at this time.
A matter of some concern to many of us in this House, and indeed the wider country, has been the successful attempts at ransomware and cyberattacks, not just on government and official bodies in this country but on private enterprises. I have witnessed one and I am sad to say that no help was given and the ransom had to be paid in that case. As the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, rightly indicated, it is highly probable that we will become a target, particularly given the sanctions outlined to date, of a cyberattack. I would like to hear from the Government today precisely what action we intend to take to protect not just government bodies but private enterprises. I have no doubt that those ransoms that have been paid, and the cyberattacks that have been successful, have been used to pay for the Russian aggression that we see to date.
I would like an assurance on what the status of refugees will be and what level of humanitarian aid we intend to give, as well as a serious undertaking to consider the further protection of those seeking our help under Article 4 of the NATO treaty.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I want first to say how much I have valued the opportunity to listen to your Lordships’ House and gain from the experience and profound knowledge of what has taken place. I join everyone in being clear that Putin’s attack on Ukraine is an unprovoked and unjustifiable violation of international law, for which we hope he will in due time be held accountable. It breaks multiple treaties and international commitments, including the founding principles of the UN charter, which we all support. The attack on Ukraine is an attack on democracy.
We have no choice but to support the Ukrainian people, so our job today is to make that support clear and unambiguous. Conclusions on what lessons can be learned from how we arrived at this situation can be left until later but, in offering our support, it is crucial that we are honest with the Ukrainian people and with our own people. We need to tell people about the costs that will be involved. What price are we prepared to pay? What price are the people of the United Kingdom prepared to pay to support Ukraine? There is no doubt that there will be a cost, so let us not pretend otherwise. I very much welcomed the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, who highlighted that issue. Effective sanctions will impact on us as well as on the Putin regime. They will have a cost. A financial cost will fall on all of us, and not just from even higher energy costs; there will also be an impact on jobs and individual incomes as effective sanctions impact on us as well as Putin.
I want to make it clear that I believe we should be prepared to meet these costs in the interest of freedom and democracy, but they must be shared fairly and the heaviest burden must fall on those with the deepest pockets. What this requires is redistribution of the burden, and this can be achieved only by higher taxes on those who can afford to pay the most to help those with the least. We should look to those who have profited from the Covid pandemic; not least, we should look at the oil and energy companies that stand to make even greater profits from the new crisis. The case for a windfall tax is even more compelling. When the Government talk about effective sanctions, they have to make clear that they are prepared to will the means as well as the ends, while protecting those least able to pay.
There is, however, another cost that we might be asked to pay: a human cost in terms of death and injury. Without taking this issue too far today, I have considerable concerns in this area, particularly given Putin’s unambiguous threat to use nuclear weapons. We have treaty obligations that we must fulfil but we need deep and careful thought before we go any further. History teaches us that it is all too easy to stumble into conflict with devastating consequences.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. Russia should surely now be expelled from the Council of Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, mentioned. It should also be expelled from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. President Putin’s invasion has flagrantly violated the founding principles of both organisations by attacking a fellow member. Some will say that Russia should remain in these bodies to facilitate future diplomacy and dialogue, but of what value is that when Putin’s comprehensive strategy of lies and deceit has weaponised the channels of diplomacy against his adversaries? Perhaps more will question whether it matters either way, as both bodies have arguably lacked direction and purpose for some time.
With the removal of Russia’s permanent seat on the UN Security Council not being an option, its expulsion from the European community would be a worthwhile signal that Putin has made this great nation a pariah in the eyes of all those who are now threatened by it. Conversely, keeping Russia among the ranks of those which it threatens risks sending the opposite signal: namely, that the democracies Putin threatens remain weak and could be further bullied. More importantly, removing the common threat from the ranks of these bodies could free up either or both of them to play a role in the restructuring of European security, which a number of noble Lords have pointed out is now necessary and urgent.
Strengthening NATO is vital, as many noble Lords have said today. However, these tragic events have shown the grave gap that exists for European neighbours on Russia’s borders that are not NATO members. This must not be centred simply on the European Union. Indeed, we must now take active steps to widen this. Too often, recent discussions on the UK’s involvement in Europe’s defence and security approach have become a lament for Brexit. But we need to make the case that it is not in our neighbours’ interests to keep any European nation on the sidelines in the face of this common threat—particularly given the scale of the UK’s capability and will to act. It is absolutely down to us to show that we are willing to re-engage on a sustained basis to take diplomacy and our European alliances seriously, in a way that we have perhaps not in recent years. As we do that, there is a responsibility and a need for our EU allies to find a way of working that can maximise the contribution of the UK and other allies which have chosen a different economic and political path to the European Union.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I of course share the views already expressed on the appalling nature of the events that have taken place in eastern Europe and, in particular, in Ukraine.
Exactly 40 years ago this year, the Argentinians invaded and briefly occupied the Falkland Islands. The response of the United Kingdom, in accordance with Resolution 503 of the Security Council—which, incidentally, the Russians did not veto—and, above all, the views and wishes of the Falkland islanders, was to recover the islands militarily. This was achieved after a brief Argentinian occupation. The view of the Falkland islanders is known to remain unchanged. However, recent remarks from some Argentinian sources suggest that the islands are once more at risk. To make matters worse, the Chinese authorities have recently made a public statement supporting the Argentinians in this matter. Against this background, the Argentinians perhaps imagine that Her Majesty’s Government are presently distracted by other matters—those we are debating today—and might therefore choose this moment to launch a new attack on the Falkland Islands while Her Majesty’s Government are looking the other way, so to speak.
I therefore ask the Minister, when he comes to respond, to confirm that the Government are aware of recent Argentinian remarks and statements, and that he can confirm that our policy concerning the Falkland Islands remains unchanged. Thus, exactly as in 1982, the views and wishes of the Falkland islanders will be paramount.
I apologise for this brief digression from the main subject of our debate. I of course share the view of Her Majesty’s Government with regard to Ukraine. However, we cannot ignore threats elsewhere in the world.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very serious debate, full of the most enormous range of experience from all parts of the House. It is a situation that none of us thought we would ever live to see in today’s modern world. I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, who sadly has just left his place. His serious and well-informed contribution has made an obvious impact on all of us who have been here today.
I belong to the generation that grew up in a western Europe that was free from the scourge of war, thanks to the sacrifice of the previous generation, which in my family’s case included the death of my own uncle as a fighter pilot in 1944—and the Russian people too made enormous sacrifices that we should not forget. But, of course, we are not in conflict with the Russian people, and we must make that clear in every way we can. One of the most important things we can do is to support those brave people in Russia—and they really are brave—who are at this very moment protesting against what is being done in their name, and of course the brave people of the Ukraine who are risking life and limb to defend their own independence.
I believe the key issue that faces us now is to rethink the security arrangements for Europe. The world now knows that President Putin was lying when he said he was not planning to invade Ukraine; we simply cannot trust anything that he and his regime have to say. But we must urgently reconsider the security arrangements for Europe: the recent integrated defence review needs another look. We might once have thought that warfare based on tanks, weaponry and so on would not occur on the continent of Europe in our lifetime, but I am not sure the Baltic states share that view at the moment, and our national security strategy should certainly be reassessed in the light of what we are now living through. Younger generations, many of whom have probably never thought about it, are going to have to wake up to the need to take defence seriously in the face of the threat of Russian aggrandisement, and they need to become aware of the costs involved. They need to understand the risk to our democracies if we are not prepared to make a stand, and that you cannot take peace for granted: this is a debate the country needs to have.
This brings me on to sanctions. The House is united in its support for the sanctions that have been announced, and the leader of my party has made that very clear. But we know that, while they must be applied and sustained by the widest possible range of countries, on their own they will not be enough to stop what is currently happening. We must also be honest about the consequences of those sanctions. Yes, we want them to work—we want to cut Russia out of the western financial system, because that would be a severe penalty—but sanctions will also hurt us, and millions of people will realise this as the price of gas rises, both here and in Europe. When the Minister, at the beginning of her speech, referred to the decision of the Germans on Nord Stream 2, there were perceptible cries of “Hear, hear!” across the House, because we all recognise that this decision involves a sacrifice for Germany. The decision it took is credible, and we too must face up to the need to make our sanctions credible. Here I must say, frankly, that the UK’s credibility on sanctions, especially financial sanctions, is undermined by the reputation of London as the laundromat for Russian money.
We know that, over recent years, many rich Russians have been welcomed to London, and they have treated us as a bargain basement, investing in, and buying up, everything from football clubs to private education places and highly expensive homes. It is hardly surprising that some of our citizens cannot even find a basement of their own in central London as a result. On sanctions, the message must be that we must clean up our act, and my message to any political party that accepts Russian money is to hand back those roubles.
Next, we need to consider the way we can use our power, and there are different ways in which we can do this. We should certainly continue to make our case at the United Nations, despite the vetoes. We can support the brave Ukrainians with weapons—but there are risks even in this area, as Putin’s threats make clear. We must use our soft power to the maximum extent, including the BBC and the World Service, to explain to the Russian people what is happening and why. We need the BBC’s reputation as a trusted source of information and we need to use social media and deploy cyber countermeasures, because this is a war of information as well as a war of weapons. If I may say so, although others may disagree, I think we should leave Russia Today to broadcast, because we are a democratic society that is strong enough to withstand some of the absurdly pro-Putin propaganda it puts out. Besides, if we ban it, Russia would ban the BBC, and what would be the point in that?
To conclude, I think that President Putin has made a major mistake in what he has done, but, like President Biden, I have no idea what is in his mind. If it is the case that he wants to recreate the Soviet empire, he is on the wrong side of history and it may be that this invasion will come to be seen as the beginning of the end for his regime. I, for one, hope it will be.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to have been present for the brilliant maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Sedwill. His presence in this House promises much for future debates. Of course, our debates are often characterised by both who is present and who is not. It is a matter of regret to me that my noble friend Lord Lebedev—of Hampton and Siberia—is not in his place today. It would have been of interest to your Lordships, I think, to hear his insights into the dystopic situation that has developed in Ukraine.
In 1940, just after the end of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, a woman called Frederika Katzner left the city in which she spent the first 26 years of her life. It was then called Lwów and was in Poland. Following the Yalta conference it became Lviv, and has been in Ukraine for a very long time. Until the outbreak of the Second World War, Lwów—or Lviv—was a sophisticated, attractive, Habsburgian city, with a large, diverse population, including a very large number of Jews, of whom Frederika Katzner was one. It was cosmopolitan and sophisticated. In 1990, 50 years later, she returned for the first time with me, her son. In 1990, Lviv was just emerging from the post-Yalta Soviet subjugation. It was still beautiful but down at heel. The currency comprised one-sided coupons, the best value for which was obtained from student entrepreneurs in the black market. We bought tickets for the ballet, which cost us $2.
My most recent visit to Lviv was in 2019. By then, it was a thriving, lively city, full of young people from Germany, Austria, Russia and other countries, there to enjoy themselves. It was indubitably a city in a single nation. There were democratic campaigning posters, typical of what we see around London—many written by students who were very active. It was very much part of an expectant and ambitious democracy, which it became. The last thing that the citizens I witnessed in Lviv appeared to want was to be dominated by a new Russian hegemony. Yet the city of my mother and her family—our family—has now been usurped again by a deluded, demonic, dystopian despot.
I support all the actions that have been taken by the Government so far to try to bring down this outrage by the use of every economic sanction we can find. I hope that what appears to be the Prime Minister’s wish, that SWIFT should be removed from the Russians, should come about within hours or days, not weeks or months.
We have heard some submissions in this debate about money laundering in London. I should say to those who have rightly criticised that—including in the very good speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who spoke just before me—and the actions of some law firms, that it is probably fair to say that there is a host of law firms that have been involved in these activities. I suggest to the Minister that we should now create a register of lawyers’ activities for Russian citizens and their strong connections as an adjunct to the new National Security and Investment Act system, which was introduced in recent weeks. I and others would be happy to discuss with the Government how that might take place.
I am involved, as the register tells us, in a strategy consultancy which does work for clients from all over the world. I had the privilege of turning down a proposed contract from a Russian not so long ago on ethical grounds—it certainly reminded me how much Russian money there is in London sloshing around in accounts, some of dubious propriety.
I also ask the Minister to look at the international situation. Reuters has reported today that India is exploring setting up rupee trade accounts with Russia to soften the effect of sanctions and enable it to trade with Russia. Reuters is usually right on these economic issues. I urge the Government to ensure that, when we deal with the Russians over this terrible tragedy, we ensure that friendly countries go with us.
Lord Owen (Ind SD)
My Lords, as we debate, people are laying down their lives for the freedom of their country. I know we all respect that very greatly. We are helped in doing so by the serious tone of this debate, particularly the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, who is very welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who knows the President of Russia very well and has met him, pointed to what he believes is a change, and to what has changed him. Quite apart from power, which tends to change people, there is a contempt and hubristic mendacity about him which is alarming and needs serious study.
There is also a possibility that he has made a grave mistake. It is very noticeable how little time he has spent trying to convince his own people about this invasion, unlike the tragedy of eight years ago. We signed a guarantee of the territorial boundaries of this country. Our response to that attack on another country was disgraceful, negligible and lamentable. It shook me so much that I gave up doing business in Russia. It was very clear that, from that moment on, we were dealing with a different Russia.
However, I strongly support the many noble Lords in this Chamber who have fulfilled a Churchillian attitude to Russia—engaging with it at all times and respecting its people. We must not turn our anger at what is being done by the present President against the people of Russia.
What is there new to say? The one point I want to leave the House with is this: do not believe that this is the end of the story. In 1977, after a six-year lapse of any contact, I spent time in Moscow negotiating and talking with President Brezhnev and Foreign Minister Gromyko. At times, particularly on a social occasion with Gromyko, the atmosphere turned very nasty when they argued that our signature on the Helsinki Final Act meant that we had accepted that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would be incorporated into the then Soviet Union. I argued back very toughly, but I was left with a deep-seated impression that this view would still be held by a lot of people in Russia—and it is certainly held, in my view, by the present President. We ought to look at this very seriously.
He has already placed nuclear weapons in the enclave of Kaliningrad. There was an ominous tone to his speech—he clearly did not mention nuclear weapons but everybody knew exactly what he meant—on what would happen if we changed our position and started to fight, which I think we could not and would be wrong to do. NATO is a defensive organisation; it cannot embark on this intervention. But if we do not take this warning seriously now, who knows what will happen in future?
I do not think it is of anywhere near the same seriousness to those Russians who want a large empire to try to now take the battle to those three states. I do not think they will do it immediately anyhow. But what are we going to do? I have listened to many debates in this House; I wish it were more powerful. Who is going to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said in a good speech, that there is a financial cost to what has happened in Ukraine? This Government increased defence when they came into office. It was a praiseworthy decision. They did something more: they gave a four-year guarantee to the Ministry of Defence that that was going to be its budget. The Chancellor will no doubt feel he ought to hold that, but no. Two years in, we have to increase defence now and we have to do it with direct evidence of what we have seen. There is now, for the first time, I believe, a leader of Russia who would contemplate using nuclear weapons without any great concern—even Stalin, I do not think, would have lightly embarked on using nuclear weapons. I think this man could do so. We need much more evidence than what we have seen over the last few days.
I wanted to say something else in this Chamber, although my time is up: thank goodness for President Biden and his extremely good Secretary of State. They have bound NATO together in a way that has been missing for many years. I hope we will stop any form of criticism. I never believed a word of any criticism over Afghanistan; we had lost in Afghanistan. Let us think very carefully about our next few steps, but it will demand sacrifices from the people of this country if we are serious, and woe betide us if we are not.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I stand in support of Ukraine and of our values, as the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, exhorted us to do earlier. It is perhaps a sign of the importance of this debate—and of the global situation—that there has been close to unanimity across all sides of your Lordships’ House about the gravity of the situation, the enormity of what the United Kingdom needs to do and how far we are all willing to go to achieve that.
It is a convention in this House very often to say that one is delighted to speak after the last person who spoke, but I am particularly pleased to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Owen, because his comments were so important. He also raised a point that had not been made in the previous five hours, which was about just how strong NATO under Biden can be. That is important and builds on suggestions at earlier stages across your Lordships’ House from my noble friend Lord Newby and the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Cormack, about Europe speaking with one voice. One of the things that is crucial at present is that Europe responds as one, the West responds as one, and—as far as possible—the international community responds as one. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, suggested that perhaps we needed to talk to former Soviet satellites, countries that might suddenly realise how vulnerable they are going to be if Putin really is looking to rebuild a Soviet empire. As many others have suggested, including international historians like Margaret MacMillan and Niall Ferguson, perhaps he is not looking so much to the Soviet Union as to the former Russian Empire.
Very clearly, we need the strongest possible sanctions. For days, these Benches have been calling for the Government to do more and saying that we do not think they have done enough. Obviously more sanctions were announced yesterday. They were important, but do they go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, called for in his maiden speech? We have heard much about his maiden speech, which was indeed important. Are the sanctions really going to be ratcheted up sufficiently to make a difference to Putin? We agreed the statutory instrument yesterday and the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary then talked about further sanctions, so one of the questions I would like the Minister to focus on is: what other legislation needs to be introduced and what other matters need to be legislated on? Does the Minister have a list? Can he tell us when that is coming forward? Can he take back to the Prime Minister that your Lordships’ House, I believe, and the other place would be willing to sit longer, later, more days and closer to Easter to get through all the legislation we need to? Pushing this back beyond Easter is not appropriate, because these sanctions need to be in place as soon as possible.
We have heard much about Russian money in this country. When we were looking for European sanctions at the time of the Crimea crisis in 2014, one of the issues was that the French were perhaps a little reluctant to stop arms sales to Russia, Germany was a little reluctant to stop Nord Stream 2, and the United Kingdom was perhaps too reluctant to stop Russian money in the City of London. As my noble friend Lady Kramer pointed out, we are seen as the London laundromat. Can that stop immediately? How quickly can this be done? We cannot let these sanctions drag on and worry about whether certain individuals might have deep pockets for lawyers. We need to make sure that assets are frozen as soon as possible, so what are the Government doing to ensure that this can be done very swiftly?
I believe that I and all other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon are standing up for our values of democracy and the international rule of law, yet my noble friend Lord Alderdice in—as always—a very powerful speech suggested that perhaps we were not: that the call for sanctions was not internationally permitted because they were not being put through the United Nations, and that we were therefore talking about engaging in economic warfare. I am not calling for any sort of warfare; I do not believe these Benches are. We clearly need economic sanctions but, by definition, a UN Security Council with a permanent member state—with a veto—which is the protagonist in this incursion into Ukraine will never vote for sanctions. I hope we will all support the international order but still accept the need for sanctions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, pointed out in his important speech, and as my noble friend Lord Alderdice raised, we need to be absolutely clear not just in this Chamber—talking to ourselves, and maybe talking to members of our businesses, universities or political parties—but in this country that by standing up to Russia and standing up for Ukraine, the costs of these sanctions are not just going to hit Putin, his cronies or Russian businesses. They will impact on all of us. They will impact on energy and gas prices, but that has to be a price we are willing to pay to ensure freedom in Europe.
There is a price for that freedom, but by dealing with this through sanctions and economic means, we can try to ensure that we, as a sovereign country and a NATO member, do not find ourselves tripping into war. That could be existential because, as several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and my noble friend Lady Northover, have pointed out, Putin has made it very clear that he does not rule out using nuclear weapons. We cannot get into a war but we must ensure the rights and freedoms of Ukraine.
Finally, several noble Lords, in particular my noble friends Lady Ludford and Lady Sheehan and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, talked about refugees. In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, talked about humanitarian aid for Ukraine. How far will that go? How generous are Her Majesty’s Government willing to be to support those who are internally displaced or who, more likely, will very soon be in Poland and the Baltic states? In his reply, can the Minister tell us—it seems like an echo of everything we have been saying about Afghanistan for the last six months—that the MoD, the FCDO and the Home Office are speaking as one? Are they working together to ensure that we will have an open and generous package for refugees and that visas will be available for Ukrainians and maybe, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, suggested, for Russian dissidents? There are people in Russia who are standing up against Putin. As several noble Lords have pointed out, we should respect Russia and the Russians, even if we do not respect Putin and we think that what he is doing is fundamentally wrong.
Like everybody else, we on these Benches believe that we need to stand and support Ukraine. We need to do it collectively with our European and NATO allies. We support what the Government have done so far, but we now perhaps need them to go a little further.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, what a privilege it is to speak on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition in this historic debate. I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, on his maiden speech. We were all informed by it and that is what is important, as the noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Owen, pointed out.
This Chamber may be a revising Chamber, but the experience of the Members who come here informs the policy of Her Majesty’s Government in a way that makes for better legislation and better decision-making when it comes to historic and momentous events such as those which we are debating here today. To have former diplomats of the quality we have mentioned and former military officers, including those who have served at the highest level, informing these debates is of extreme importance. Alongside that, we have Members from the Church and those who have worked in humanitarian roles. All bring relevant experience to this debate, which can only help inform us on what are, to be fair to the Government—this would be the case whoever was in government—immensely difficult decisions as to the best way forward. There is no division between us—or 99.9% of us—but there is of course debate and discussion, even within government, on the best way forward.
I start by saying to the Government, as did my noble friend Lady Smith last night, that we stand four-square with them in supporting the actions they have taken in respect of Ukraine and trying to deter the aggression from Russia. That is a really important message for the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who introduced this debate with her usual clarity and provided information for us all. I thank her again for that. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will follow in that as well when he responds to this wide-ranging debate.
I will say just a few words of introduction. On days like this, people talk about rhetoric. Sometimes it is important. Sometimes words matter. People across the world will hear what is being said in this Chamber, one of the historic debating Chambers of the world. In this historic debate, words and voices should ring out from this Chamber in rightful condemnation of President Putin and support for the people of Ukraine—indeed, for all those fighting for freedom, including, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and others, the brave people we are seeing in pictures from Moscow and other cities in Russia protesting about the war. One can only imagine the bravery of those people in doing that.
As we have done throughout our proud history, we stand on the side of democracy, human rights and freedom. In the end, are those not what President Putin fears more than anything else? Going back again to the brilliant speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, as well as the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, is it not democracy and freedom on the doorstep of Russia that frighten President Putin more than anything else? When the people of Russia look out to the way in which human rights are respected in an independent, democratic Ukraine, is that not what frightens him? Is that not what undermines his system—in many ways, more than tanks and military campaigns can?
Today is a day of many words. We have heard many great speeches but the words from this Chamber will echo around the world and across Europe. Let the people of Ukraine hear loudly and clearly that we stand with them, as we do with everybody across eastern Europe. Your fight is our fight. Your struggle is our struggle. Your battle is our battle. All of us thought—indeed, hoped—that the dark days of the past had gone. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, sought to remind us, we believed that one state aggressively invading another in Europe had been consigned to the dustbin of history along with the enormous human cost, as millions of lives were lost to establish this principle in Europe and across the world.
However, let Russia and its ally, Belarus, know that we will do everything in our power with our allies to stand up once again for international law and the right to national self-determination. More than anything else, alongside our debates about sanctions, the best way forward and all those things, these issues of principle need to ring out from this Chamber so that they are heard loud and clear across Europe, in Russia and around the world. We are proud to stand for that. It is our history and we are proud to remind everybody of it.
Specifically, we support the Government on sanctions. No doubt the Government will seek ways to extend those sanctions and make them more effective; they have our support in doing that. I stand with the people such as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who pointed out that this may be a long-term measure; it will not necessarily be won in the short term. I join the noble Lords, Lord Anderson, Lord Tugendhat, Lord Adonis and Lord Davies, among others, in saying that we need to prepare the British public to understand that this is their fight as well. This is important to them. This fight for freedom matters to people on the streets of Birmingham, Glasgow, Belfast and Cardiff. Part of that cost, and part of what may happen, is that gas, electricity and petrol bills may go up. We need to be honest with people about that for them to understand that, in standing in solidarity with the people of Ukraine, that is the cost that will have to be paid. I tell noble Lords this: I do not believe that the British public will shirk from that. Never have they been found wanting when it comes to standing with other people in the defence of freedom and democracy across the world; I do not believe that they will be found wanting in this instance either.
We support the Government on sanctions and look to the Government to take what further action they can. I very much agreed with the Defence Secretary when he pointed out on the radio this morning that we believe action should be taken on SWIFT. Speaking on behalf of the UK Government, he said that we believe that and need to persuade our international partners based in Belgium and elsewhere that it is the right thing to do. We can only wish them well with respect to that because we think that it will make a real difference.
We need to stand with the people of Ukraine. They need to understand that we will work with them. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said, we must support them with military equipment—not troops—and make sure that they get the equipment they need if it comes to resistance. As we speak, we learn of hundreds of casualties. Goodness only knows what the truth is and what the consequences of shelling are. We stand with the Ukrainian people so that they know they can have equipment. If it comes to resistance, again, there will be some hard decisions for the Government about how we will support those who seek to resist a Russian occupation.
No doubt the Government will be thinking about what we do with respect to NATO and defence spending. It might be that all of us—our country, the western alliances and all those standing up for freedom and democracy across the world—will have to re-evaluate where defence comes and what we spend on it. We all thought that the dividend from the end of the Cold War meant that we did not have to spend the money we should be spending on defence—none of us wants to spend on defence if it perhaps means less for schools, health or international aid and all the things we want to spend money on. But the defence of freedom, democracy and human rights also has a cost. We have to say to our public and to each other that we have sometimes taken it for granted, and we will have to spend more to defend that freedom. I know that point has been made by many noble Lords.
The importance of NATO was pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell, Lord Alton, Lord King, Lord Robathan and Lord Walney, the noble Baronesses, Lady Meyer and Lady McIntosh, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, my noble friends Lord West, Lord Robertson, Lord Anderson, Lord Browne and Lord Adonis, and many others. Again, we have often taken NATO for granted. My noble friend Lord Robertson, who was Secretary-General or whatever the official title is—the leader of NATO—has reminded us constantly of NATO. But the serious point is that NATO was set up not as an aggressive alliance but as a defensive alliance, to protect the hard-won freedoms and hard-won democracy across western Europe that we take for granted. We need to be reminded of the importance of NATO and how we reinforce it. No doubt the Government will look at that.
We heard from the Minister about the additional troops, air power and no doubt ships that are being placed into countries in eastern Europe within the context of NATO. People say that that is not important. I say that, alongside what is happening in Ukraine, it is especially important for President Putin and others to recognise and realise that we mean what we say in NATO. That is why we are reinforcing the eastern borders in the countries that surround Ukraine. We believe that NATO is a defensive alliance, and we mean what we say: we will defend those countries. Those countries on the border of Ukraine need to know and understand that.
I have a couple of final points. I could not agree more with noble Lords who pointed out that this is a global issue—it is Russia versus the world. The great battle of the decades to come will be between democracy and autocracy. We need to stand with those such as the ambassador from Kenya, who stood up at the United Nations—the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, might well have been there, as he has been in the last few days— and pointed out that what was a European fight was also Kenya’s fight, because he understood that if the rule of law is undermined it has an impact. Whatever continent you happen to be on, that will undermine it. We have to take action globally.
Let this be another turning point in history. Let this be another reminder that this country, with its allies, will never turn its back on those defending freedom and democracy. Let everyone know that, however terrible these days are, we will never be cowed from doing the right thing. We will always be ready to stand with those fighting oppression. We have done so in the past and we must do so again.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their insightful contributions to today’s debate. It would be remiss of me not to immediately acknowledge the tour de force of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and his full alignment with the Government’s position. I include in those remarks, along with my deep thanks, the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I give my personal assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Collins, that, as we move forward through this crisis, I will continue to engage practically and readily with all noble Lords, but in particular the Front Benches. I know I speak for my noble friend Lady Goldie as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked whether we are working together. I hope the fact that the two of us appear together on this Bench today indicates how the Ministry of Defence and the FCDO, as well as the Home Office, are working very much as one Government.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said: that people are perhaps noted by who is here and who is absent. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, reminded us, we have had contributions from former Defence Secretaries, the former Secretary-General of NATO, former Permanent Under-Secretaries and former diplomats.
I am particularly reminded of my own time on the Front Bench, and I can count at least two Members of your Lordships’ House who I have had the honour to serve with as a Minister and who have given me invaluable advice as Permanent Secretaries at the Home Office—I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, and of course to the noble Lord, Lord McDonald. The advice they offered was so invaluable to Ministers.
On that note, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, as others have done, on a customary contribution; by that I mean that he got to the point, which was reflective of the debate. To make a personal reflection, I remember that when I was a Home Office Minister, as Minister for Countering Extremism, I faced a particular challenge. Many noble Lords will recall the awful and appalling “Kill a Muslim Day”. On that particular occasion—it was Eid—I received a call from the noble Lord. In a very calm way he said, “Tariq, I need you to come in; we need to have a chat.” I was one of the recipients of what was, thankfully, only white chalk. The noble Lord talked me through what the next steps were, very calmly and with great expertise, and I am grateful to him. I share that with noble Lords because it reflects the real strength that we bring in our collaborative approach.
Today is a testament to that, in the collaborative and collective response that we are giving unequivocally to President Putin. His actions are appalling: he has invaded a sovereign state and the best thing he can do right now is to withdraw.
As I came here I was checking my phone; the numbers are now, regrettably and tragically, rising, and there is a cost on all sides. As my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, among others, reminded us, our fight is not with the Russian people. There is a cost of lives. Perhaps even many of the Russian soldiers who are going to war and who are now in Ukraine are being forced to do so; they have families and lives. But the cost and toll of this is not just to Ukraine or Russia but to us all. Many noble Lords reminded us of that poignant fact.
It is clear that this House today stands united with the Government in their position of condemnation of the actions of the Russian Government. Their invasion of Ukraine was an unprovoked and premeditated attack against a sovereign democratic state, and a flagrant violation of international law and the UN charter.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who brings great insight and experience, highlighted the importance of upholding international law, but also of recognising the commitments that Mr Putin himself has signed. This is not just about international law, if he does not want to have regard for that; he signed these agreements himself.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, in his opening remarks talked about alliances and a strategic review. I assure him, as someone who very much lived through the challenges of Afghanistan—I am grateful to noble Lords for their support—that again, our response is being informed by the lessons learned from that particular crisis about how we can respond better.
Various statements were made about work and co-operation, whether at the European Union—I refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—or at the United Nations. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who I cannot see—
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
This is what happens during debates. I assure the noble Baroness that I was at the United Nations during the General Assembly debates. It is not just about shoring up support with our friends and allies but about doing so across the globe. We mentioned previously the contributions of the permanent representative of Kenya. Over the last few days and weeks, we have been working and shoring up support for any resolution. It is true that the UN Security Council resolution will no doubt be vetoed by Russia.
Important contributions were made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others about talking to other near neighbours. Indeed, right after the debate I intend to have a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Turkmenistan on various issues, including the very issue of support from the near neighbours of Russia.
Of course, it is important to consider our response, and I hope during the time I have to pick up on a number of the questions raised by noble Lords. Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, from the outset that we are using Britain’s position on the world stage to condemn the onslaught against Ukraine, and we will counter the Kremlin’s blizzard of lies and disinformation by telling the truth about Putin’s war of aggression. We are working together with a number of key allies to ensure that we never give up on peace, as the most reverend Primate reminded us we should never do. He quoted the words, “Blessed are the peacekeepers”, and we keep that very much at the forefront of our minds. The door of diplomacy should always remain open. However, when the opposite side rejects, as Mr Putin has done, the very existence of the nation of Ukraine, the challenge becomes all the more difficult.
Many noble Lords alluded to what is happening in Russia, and it is right that we recognise the strong rejection of Russian actions. Yet we have seen, through Mr Putin’s action on Mr Navalny, for example, what he thinks of democracy in his own country.
My noble friend Lord King talked about the quality of today’s debate: he is quite right, and he is a good example of it. The House is a great source of wisdom. As the Minister responsible—and I know I speak for my noble friend as well—I can say that the contributions today, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, reminded us, inform our policy. I know that noble Lords regularly challenge us because there are things we are not doing or not doing fast enough, but I assure them that we reflect very carefully on the valued contributions that this House makes thanks to its wisdom, insight and expertise.
The past few hours have seen Russian forces approaching Kyiv, and we need to make sure that we focus on that and continue to work with allies to provide support, particularly to the brave President Zelensky. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we are in touch with the Ukrainians. I am in regular touch with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, as is my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has spoken regularly to President Zelensky, who has made a clear and courageous decision to remain in his country. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, mentioned the president’s address, in Russian, to the Russian people. It was a very poignant message, delivered in Russian, that his fight is not with the Russian people, and he therefore implored them to reject Mr Putin’s actions.
The Government and our allies have warned for weeks, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, acknowledged, that President Putin was preparing for the actions we have seen. As my noble friend Lord Howell reminded us, this is not limited to Europe, but goes way beyond. I assure my noble friend and my noble friend Lord King that colleagues, led by the Foreign Secretary, are speaking to Foreign Ministers around the clock to shore up support for the General Assembly vote at the UN.
We were constantly told by the Russian Government that there were no plans to invade Ukraine, but it is obvious to all of us, now that various events have come to pass, that, as the Russian Government have demonstrated, they were never serious about diplomacy. My noble friend Lady Meyer reminded us of their rejection of the Minsk accord. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly spoke passionately, as he always does, about human rights. I intend to be at the Human Rights Council on Monday, events allowing, and will certainly be pursuing whatever further action can be taken at the HRC. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, reminded us of the importance of rights within country, and that will be central to our thinking and support of Ukraine’s position.
Turning to the issue of sanctions, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friends Lady Neville-Jones and Lord Tugendhat talked about the public register and the economic crime Bill. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced yesterday that we will bring forward measures on unexplained wealth orders. I have heard again the strength of feeling on expediting the economic crime Bill, a point made well by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. We will be laying further legislation, starting next week, to broaden the scope to allow us to act quicker and more broadly on the issue of sanctions as a whole.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also asked about what is happening currently in Hong Kong and Singapore. I know my right honourable friend the Trade Secretary is currently visiting that region. The points she made about how quickly centres can move is not lost on me, as I spent 20 years in the City of London, but I assure her that we are ensuring that we work with key partners. Hong Kong poses its own challenge, for obvious reasons, but we can work with Singapore as a partner and an ally.
Noble Lords made a point about ensuring that we talk to China. Only this morning my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to State Councillor Wang Yi about the position of China, including at the UN Security Council, and we again impressed on China the importance of unity and purpose, not just on the Security Council but further afield. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, reminded us, the Chinese are no fans of annexation in terms of republics declaring self-determination. Nevertheless, we will continue to work to the wire at the UNSC.
The noble Lords, Lord McDonald, Lord Adonis and Lord Alderdice, my noble friends Lord Robathan and Lord Tugendhat, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Wheatcroft, and others rightly raised the issue of sanctions. We intend to freeze the assets of Russian banks, totally shutting out Russian banks from today.
A number of noble Lords raised the cost. It is, of course, real. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, talked poignantly in this remarks about the cost. The cost is not just to the Ukrainian people or to those who neighbour Ukraine; it will be felt by all of us. As someone who has some insight into banking, the freezing of the assets of organisations such as VTB will have an impact on many businesses that operate within the UK, but severe restrictions will hammer Russia’s leading defence companies and significantly degrade Russia’s economic and military development. The sanctions will also have an immediate impact on Russia’s wealthy elite and Putin’s inner circle. We have targeted specifically his former son-in-law. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, talked about ensuring that we meet our obligations in this regard and about the long-term impacts being understood. We are going to introduce further legislation allowing us to ban Russian state and private companies from raising funds in the UK.
On SWIFT, which the noble Lords, Lord Adonis, Lord Alderdice and Lord Coaker, and many other noble Lords mentioned specifically, we believe that Russia should be cut out of SWIFT. That is not a shared view, but we continue to work with our European allies and friends to ensure that we can move forward as quickly as possible on that.
We will impose asset freezes on more than 100 entities and individuals and we will limit the amount of money that Russian nationals hold in their UK bank accounts. We will ban the Russian carrier Aeroflot. There is the tat-for-tat that also takes place. I assure the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay, that we are scaling up trade measures on high-tech goods, which will erode Russia’s strategic development with immediate effect. All existing export licences for dual-use items going to Russia will be suspended and no new licences will be granted. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on numbers in the kleptocrat unit within the NCA—but, yes, it is important that it is properly resourced and funded. That point was made by my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones.
The UK sanctions that currently exist against 120 businesses and oligarchs are part of a concerted strike against Mr Putin’s regime and are carefully co-ordinated with our international allies, including the US, the EU and other G7 partners. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that when we look across the G7—I am a big advocate of it—there is an increasing number of women Foreign Ministers, including in the Five Eyes, where I believe the only male member is the United States Secretary of State. There is a real move to ensure that women are rightly in key leadership positions.
The UK will also take decisive action against Belarus for its part in the wholly unjustified attack on Ukraine.
I note very carefully the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on legal registers et cetera, and I would of course be keen to hear more details and thoughts on how that can perhaps be incorporated into future consideration.
VTB, Russia’s second-largest bank, is worth £154 billion, so there are impacts to be felt.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Kramer, raised specific names. As I have already said, we have taken action against elites. I cannot go into future designations, but noble Lords will be kept up to speed by the fact that the broader legislation will allow us to capture more people. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also asked about the applicability of sanctions to the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies. The sanctions instrument which we plan to lay will apply to the OTs and CDs.
Gazprom was raised by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. We are co-ordinating with our allies to maximise the economic cost. This must include addressing the issue of European dependence on gas companies such as Gazprom. VTB and VEB are prevented, under existing sanctions, from raising further finance in the City of London and the UK. As I have said, further legislation will be made next week. In the time that I have, I hope that this gives a sense of the sanctions issue, our intent and our direction of travel. We are working tirelessly with our allies and partners to co-ordinate our response in this respect.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that the Council of Europe is very much on our agenda. I welcome further thoughts—following what the noble Lord talked about—on the exclusion of Russia from European bodies. That is very much for the bodies themselves to decide, but there is a point to be made on ensuring that Russia knows that there is a sanction for its actions.
We are also currently looking at energy, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Howell, among others. We welcome the statements made recently by the German Chancellor on Nord Stream 2. At the G7 meeting yesterday, the UK agreed to work in unity to maximise the economic price that Mr Putin will pay for his aggression. I agree with noble Lords that this must include ending Europeans’ collective dependence on Russian oil and gas. Ours is circa 3%. We are moving to other sustainable sources. Nevertheless, it is important that we work together with our European colleagues and friends.
Rightly so, humanitarian support is high up on our agenda. On this, I assure noble Lords, as someone who is now responsible for humanitarian thematic work within the FCDO. The UK has already committed funding and technical expertise to agencies working on responses to the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine. Earlier this week, I met the UN Deputy Secretary-General, Amina Mohammed, to outline our support. We are finalising the financial package and working hand in glove with OCHA to ensure that we provide the support to the Ukraine Humanitarian Fund that is needed. These concerns were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, as well as my noble friend Lord Davies. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, that, in all our support, and particularly on humanitarian matters, the issue of girls and women will be central to our thinking and support.
I turn to visas and help for refugees, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Hannay, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and others. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, also flagged this as a specific issue. Today, the Home Secretary has confirmed that Ukrainians here in the UK on work or study visas will have their visas extended and will be able to switch to different visa routes. All visa routes are also based on what noble Lords have said. I share the sentiments that were expressed, including by my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones. It is my strong personal view that if people are fleeing persecution and need assistance, the United Kingdom has been and will—I hope, always—remain a country that is open. We need to work to ensure that we stand firm in this commitment, as we have done previously. I am sure that the Home Secretary will have listened to the comments made today, and we will continue to work in this respect to ensure that we provide the support that the Ukrainians need.
I will indulge the House slightly further on important issues of defence and NATO. Defence is playing a central role in the UK’s response to the Russian invasion, and we will ensure that the UK and our security interests are secured. Secondly, we will work through NATO and closely with our allies and partners—including Ukraine, of course—in the hours and days ahead. Working together is a real strength. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is reassured that we are ensuring that we provide security to all parts of NATO. This was a key point raised by the noble Lord, Lord West. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, reminded us of the importance of our security and defence partnerships.
The question of whether we are sending further troops to Ukraine was asked. We have stood up support, such as helping with humanitarian support. I was in Estonia a couple of weeks ago when we announced the increase in the support we provide to Estonia through NATO and doubled our number of troops; that has been stood up. We are offering further military support, in terms of defensive capabilities, to Ukraine directly. We have already begun our military support to NATO allies and partners. An initial deployment of Royal Marines has arrived in Poland. On a bilateral basis, we are strengthening our solidarity with our NATO allies. In addition, the further Typhoon aircraft that my noble friend Lady Goldie mentioned will allow us to establish a full squadron at RAF Akrotiri. Over the coming months we will also maintain our activities to provide further reassurance.
We also remain supportive of Ukraine’s NATO membership application, in line with the 2008 Bucharest summit. I assure the noble Lords, Lord Sedwill and Lord Campbell-Savours, that we remain firm on what NATO is. It is a bedrock of European security, but it is a defensive alliance; that point needs to be understood.
I assure my noble friend Lady Rawlings that we are offering broader support to others. My noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned discussions under Articles 4 and 5. Those are very much under way to ensure that all members of NATO receive the support and the reassurances they currently require as Russia continues to exercise its expansionist policies.
On wider defence issues, I welcome the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, about how we have increased spending. I listened carefully, as did my noble friend Lady Goldie, on the importance of ensuring that we are equipped in our defence responses to meet the requirements of the day. Meeting the challenges of cyber is not lost on us.
The UK leads as a European contributor to NATO’s defence capability, and it is important that other NATO partners step up in their response as well. We have readiness forces and make contributions to NATO formations. Our Armed Forces have been built up to face major state threats; that is why they include state-of-the-art capabilities such as F35 fifth-generation fighters, the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier and other assets. During this crisis, the UK is doubling the number of personnel in Estonia, as I said, and sending four additional UK Typhoon jets to Cyprus. HMS “Trent” is conducting patrols in the eastern Mediterranean and HMS “Diamond” is preparing to sail. Over the last week, 350 Royal Marines of 45 Commando committed to Poland have already been deployed. As I said, we have also put 1,000 more British personnel at a state of readiness to support the humanitarian response.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, talked of Russian election interference. We have taken steps to secure more mitigations against such interference, but we should be ever ready. The Russian state continues to disrupt Ukraine, Europe, the UK and the world, and we need to ensure our state-of-the-art response. Anyone who has had any engagement with the National Cyber Security Centre will know that we really are world leading in this respect.
My noble friend Lady Meyer asked about Russian and Ukrainian expertise in language training. That is very much at the forefront of how we deploy our diplomats, as I am sure other former Permanent Secretaries of the FCO will testify. The skills training for our diplomats, including our current diplomats serving in Moscow, reflects the language skills they require.
My noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, raised the BBC World Service. Last year the FCDO announced £94.4 million to help the World Service build on its great work. I assure noble Lords that we are looking to see how, through an additional £3 million of funding, we can directly address additional investment to tackle disinformation.
We have had a very extensive debate. Over the next few hours and days, we will continue working with G7 partners. We are active at the UN Security Council, and working very closely with our NATO allies, in Brussels and bilaterally, but also more broadly in ensuring that our humanitarian, defence, security and cyberdefence response, and our continuing work on sanctions, are fully aligned.
In seeking to divide us, Mr Putin has done quite the opposite. This is, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, one of those occasions when we have 99.9% unanimity and solidarity across your Lordships’ House. A clear message goes out from here: you have not only united us but you have united Europe, and we are working on uniting the world.
What has happened in Ukraine is blatantly against the UN charter. Russia is a P5 member that signs up to it. There is an extra responsibility. I was in that chamber when I heard the Russian representative, an ambassador whom I know, directly attack the Secretary-General of the United Nations. For what? Secretary-General Guterres was standing up against aggression and condemning it. That should not be happening in the United Nations. He was doing what he should as Secretary-General: bringing countries together. The 190-plus nations of the United Nations must stand together against that one nation which clearly has violated the sovereignty of another. NATO, the European Union and our work through all key alliances and the United Nations are central to our thinking and our actions.
In thanking all noble Lords for their very insightful, expert contributions today, I end with the words of an anthem known well to the Ukrainians, which perhaps embellishes our support and emboldens the spirit of Ukrainians. From this House and from the other place, from this Parliament and from our country, there is a message of solidarity and unity: we stand with you. In the words of the anthem:
“Glorious spirit of Ukraine shines and lives forever.
Blessed by fortune, brotherhood will stand up together.
Like the dew before the sun, enemies will fade,
We will further rule and prosper in our promised land.”