House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
The House will know that a Member has been arrested in connection with an investigation into an allegation of very serious criminal offences. I understand that the Member has confirmed that he will not attend the House of Commons while an investigation is ongoing. I, the House of Commons Commission and the House Service take the safety of our staff and parliamentary community as a whole very seriously and are ensuring that any necessary measures are taken in respect of MPs’ employees and staff.
All Members and staff have access to the individual sexual misconduct adviser by contacting the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme helpline and they should not hesitate to use it—or, if it is believed that a crime has been committed, please go directly to the police. While the investigation is ongoing, I believe that it would be wholly inappropriate for any further reference to be made to the matter in the House, including any attempt to name the Member concerned. I would appreciate your co-operation on this matter.
I remind Members that the private Member’s Bill ballot book is open in the No Lobby today until the rise of the House, except during Divisions. The ballot draw will be held at 9 am tomorrow in Committee Room 15, where the Chair of Ways and Means will be on hand and drawing out the lucky winners.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
Rangers, that great British football club, are in Seville tonight for the Europa league final. I hope that the whole House, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is an avid Hearts fan, and the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who is an avid Hibs fan, will join me in wishing them a famous victory.
All areas in Scotland will receive an allocation of UKSPF via a needs-based funding formula. Local leaders are empowered to design their own interventions in line with the levelling up missions. We are determined to boost productivity, pay, jobs and living standards.
Dr Davies
Will my right hon. Friend kindly explain how the allocation of SPF funding in Scotland and across the rest of the UK will help level up those communities more effectively than the previous structural funding?
Mr Jack
The UK shared prosperity fund is a central pillar of our ambitious levelling-up agenda for places across Scotland and provides £212 million of new funding for local investment. Local partners have far greater flexibility than before. They can invest in priority areas and target funds where they are needed. Allocations are being made on a needs-based assessment, including a specifically tailored proportion for rural areas in Scotland.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Scotland has been short-changed by the loss of EU funding, leaving a 40% reduction in the funding that we would have received from the EU. It is not only the Scottish Government saying that but the Treasury Committee, the House of Lords Constitution Committee and Bloomberg, so there is clearly no levelling up. What steps has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that Scotland’s shortfall in funding is remedied, and remedied fast?
Mr Jack
I seek to correct the hon. Lady: the funding is tapered with UK structural funds. EU structural funds and UK structural funds are tapered. We paid into EU funds, and the EU is still paying into Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, but the advantage of Brexit is that we now have control over that money and can decide how we spend it. The amount of money in total has not been reduced in any way.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
For years, Ministers have assured organisations in receipt of EU structural funding that the UK shared prosperity fund would maintain that funding after Brexit. Finally, the Government published the details of their shared prosperity fund and, for organisations such as the world-leading European Marine Energy Centre based in Orkney, it was a brutal blow. The Government broke their promise. As a result, EMEC, a site that has tested more marine energy devices than any other in the world, now faces closure. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that his Cabinet colleagues keep their promise of matching the funding for EMEC and other Interreg projects in Scotland?
Mr Jack
Discussions with EMEC are ongoing between my office, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. We are making progress, but there is further progress to be made. To that end, I am happy to offer a face-to-face meeting with EMEC.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues and the Ministry of Defence. The integrated review sets out the Government’s ambitions for defence and foreign policy over the next decade. British armed forces personnel in Scotland play a crucial role in defending the whole of the United Kingdom and our allies, and will continue to do so.
Sally-Ann Hart
For centuries, Scotland and the rest of the UK have had a united defence stance and military bond. Will my right hon. Friend outline what assessment his Department has made of the direct and indirect impacts, including economic, that Scotland benefits from as a result of being part of the United Kingdom?
Mr Jack
The benefits are enormous. Scotland plays a crucial role in the defence of the UK and our NATO allies. The UK strategic bases in Scotland, RAF Lossiemouth and the UK’s nuclear deterrent at Faslane, serve to make the whole of the United Kingdom safer. The economic benefits for Scotland as a result of MOD investment are significant. MOD expenditure with industry and commerce in the last year alone totalled almost £2 billion. Defence investment in Scottish shipbuilding will see order books full until the 2030s. Construction is under way to deliver three cutting edge Type 26 frigates at BAE Systems in Govan, five Type 31 frigates at Babcock in Rosyth, and only this week the MOD awarded a £30 million contract to Babcock in Rosyth to maintain the Royal Navy’s two aircraft carriers, securing 300 jobs for the next 10 years.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State will know that the Scottish Affairs Committee, of which the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) is an assiduous member, is conducting a series of inquiries into defence in Scotland. One of the things the Committee has found in its almost concluded report on the military landscape in Scotland is that only 2.5% of total military spending is spent on Scottish small and medium-sized enterprises. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that situation is rectified?
Mr Jack
The hon. Gentleman mentions SMEs. The bulk of the spending—literally billions of pounds, worth thousands of jobs—is with British Aerospace and Babcock.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Secretary of State mentioned the awarding of the contract to Rosyth dockyard, securing 300 jobs in Rosyth, and the frigates and destroyers being built on the Clyde. Does he not agree with me that it is good that at least one of Scotland’s Governments can actually build ships that float?
Mr Jack
I think my hon. Friend refers to ferries, and he is absolutely right. I think the ferries float. They just cannot seem to finish them or make them work, or find anything that gets close to resembling a ferry.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
During the 2014 independence referendum, the Secretary of State’s Government promised that 12,500 armed forces personnel would be based in Scotland. The current figure is more than 25% below that 2014 promise. With the downward pressure on the armed forces across the board, when will his Government admit that they will never actually meet that target?
Mr Jack
Recruitment remains healthy for young Scots, both as regulars and reservists. I am sure the new recruits in Scotland are absolutely buoyed by the First Minister’s new love of the nuclear alliance that is NATO.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
Our recently published energy security strategy will ensure clean, affordable and secure power for generations to come. The strategy sets out how Great Britain will accelerate the deployment of wind, nuclear, solar and hydrogen, while continuing to support the production of domestic oil and gas in the near term.
Saqib Bhatti
Nuclear power has proven to be a safe, cleaner and more efficient source of energy. With the Government’s plans for new modular nuclear reactors, nuclear will play an important role in our energy mix and reduce household energy bills. Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Scottish Government dug their heels in and refused to get behind the UK Government’s drive for greater nuclear energy capacity?
Iain Stewart
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Nuclear energy is a safe, clean and reliable source of power and it will play an important role in the UK’s energy mix and transition. In particular, the new technology of small modular reactors offers huge opportunities. Scotland has a long tradition of nuclear power and we hope that the Scottish Government will be open-minded about working with us on it.
Tom Randall
Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine has highlighted Europe’s dependence on Russian hydrocarbons. Does my hon. Friend agree that Scotland and her access to North sea oil and gas will play a crucial role in safeguarding the United Kingdom’s energy security as we transition to a greener future?
Iain Stewart
I agree that we must do all we can to end Europe’s dependence on Russian oil and gas. The North sea has a crucial role to play in that as we transition to cleaner energy sources in the longer run. The Government remain committed to the domestic offshore oil and gas sector, which will continue to keep people warm and strengthen the security of supply.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Scotland has a quarter of Europe’s marine energy potential, but generators in the north of Scotland are charged 15 times the rate to put electricity into the national grid. When will this team, supposedly defending Scotland’s interests, actually get that sorted?
Iain Stewart
As the hon. Lady knows, that is a matter for Ofgem, which is currently conducting a review into that.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Too often, key Scottish energy projects, such as the Acorn Project in the north-east, get overlooked by this UK Government. If we look further east, the port of Nigg will provide the UK’s only offshore wind turbine manufacturing facility. It is expanding to be a major energy hub, including green hydrogen production and floating offshore wind assembly. Will the Scottish Secretary and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy visit the port of Nigg to see the massive opportunities there?
Iain Stewart
We are committed to developing the renewable energy sector in a whole range of ways. For example, I recently visited the CoRE—Community Renewable Energy—project in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. We are funding that directly through the city and growth deal project. I am more than happy to visit Nigg and any other centre in Scotland that is developing that technology. We are standing four-square behind it.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
The UK Government are carefully considering the recommendations set out in Sir Peter Hendy’s Union connectivity review. My hon. Friend Baroness Vere, the Minister responsible for Union connectivity, has discussed the UCR recommendations with Graeme Dey MSP, the former Scottish Government Transport Minister. Sadly, Mr Dey has since stepped down for health reasons. In February, we first requested a meeting with his replacement, Jenny Gilruth. We hope to meet Ms Gilruth as soon as her busy diary allows.
Robin Millar
It is regrettable that the Scottish Government refuse to engage with the UK connectivity review. It is also notable that serious concerns remain, even now, about the award management and delivery of the Ferguson ferries contract. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Scottish Government need to up their game in connecting UK residents?
Mr Jack
Yes, and to clarify my hon. Friend’s point, the Scottish Government did refuse to engage with the Union connectivity review, in the form of Cabinet Secretary Michael Matheson telling his civil servants not to communicate with Sir Peter Hendy, so my hon. Friend makes a very good point. Scottish National party MPs are only too keen to tell us when the Scottish Government are doing well, how great they are and why the UK Government should follow suit. However, when it comes to ferry contracts, the SNP has shown startling incompetence: they are five years late in delivery and £150 million over budget. Despite the Scottish Government’s incompetence, this Government stand ready to work with them on improving transport links across the United Kingdom, because we believe that that is best for all.
Katherine Fletcher
I have taken the west coast main line a couple of times from Preston to Glasgow, which is a wonderful city. It hosted the busy COP26, with its wonderful work, and there is the space industry in Glasgow. However, the train line is absolutely vital. As part of my right hon. Friend’s Union connectivity review, will he make sure that travel from Preston and the other connecting stations to Glasgow is easier and better?
Mr Jack
High Speed 2 will transform rail travel in this country. It will build opportunity and boost the economy through national regeneration and the widespread creation of jobs. HS2 will go to Preston from the moment that it opens for operation. That means that facilities at Preston will be upgraded, including a new platform that will also see a direct HS2 service from Birmingham, increasing the frequency of connections to the UK’s major economic centres.
Rachael Maskell
Turning to the east, better connectivity strengthens the economy and strengthens opportunity—Labour’s twin ambitions for Scotland. With York having such a pivotal role on the whole network, what discussions is the Secretary of State having about investing in rail north of York to ensure that connectivity right into the heart of Scotland?
Mr Jack
The hon. Lady and I share exactly the same ambition: faster rail to York, which will mean faster rail to Scotland.
Rob Roberts
Having spent a wonderful weekend in Glasgow and visited the wonderful Rowallan castle in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for a wedding, I completely agree that the scenery and tourism in Scotland should be enjoyed by everybody in the United Kingdom. Can my right hon. Friend confirm what discussions he has had with Ministers in the Department for Transport about enacting all the recommendations in Sir Peter’s review? Can he confirm a timeline for when that might be likely to occur?
Mr Jack
The Prime Minister has welcomed—indeed, intends to accept—the proposals for the creation of UKNET, a strategic transport network spanning the entire United Kingdom. The funding that the UK Government have set aside will put us on the right path to developing the best infrastructure investment options to strengthen our main transport arteries for people and businesses across the United Kingdom.
Dehenna Davison
The A68 is one of the main arteries for traffic crossing the border of England and Scotland, carrying thousands of vehicles each way every day. Many pass through the small village of Toft Hill in my constituency. In 2021, the Government finally announced that they would be providing funding to finally complete the much-awaited Toft Hill bypass—[Interruption]—improving the safety of roads for all users, including those travelling into England from Scotland. Does the Secretary of State agree that that demonstrates the Government’s commitment to bringing the nations of our UK together by ensuring that the infrastructure works not only for both nations, but for local communities?
Mr Jack
I notice that my hon. Friend was being rudely interrupted, but what I think I picked up was that the A68 from Darlington to Midlothian is of great importance to cross-border transport connectivity between England and Scotland. I extend my congratulations to Durham County Council for its success in the levelling-up fund. The rerouting of the A68 at Toft Hill will create a new 1.6 km bypass away from the village centre, which I know my hon. Friend has been campaigning tirelessly for.
Mark Jenkinson
Will my right hon. Friend set out his assessment of the impact of devolution on Union connectivity?
Mr Jack
Sir Peter Hendy noted in his final report that
“devolution has been good for transport”.
However, he identified that it has none the less led to
“a gap in UK-wide strategic transport planning that has resulted in cross-border schemes…seeming to be a lower priority than other schemes which may provide greater local benefit.”
Through the implementation of UKNET, we are committed to forging and strengthening transport bonds and creating a better-connected United Kingdom.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I do not think the Scottish Government need to take lessons in ferries from a Government who awarded a massive ferry contract to a company that did not even have a boat, but we will leave that to one side just now.
The Secretary of State was kind enough to mention my constituency colleague Jenny Gilruth. Jenny Gilruth has something in common with every single constituency MSP ever elected in Fife: she is not a Conservative. The Conservatives have never won a Scottish Parliament seat in Fife, and its last Conservative Member in this place lost his seat in 1987. In wards entirely within my constituency, the Conservatives managed one councillor, compared with eight from the SNP. Given the very clear expression of anti-Tory sentiment in Fife through the years, what makes the Secretary of State think that he knows Fife’s transport needs better than our local constituency MSP?
Mr Jack
The hon. Gentleman misses the very important point that Ms Gilruth is the Transport Minister. We want Scotland’s two Governments to work together, and we believe that if the Scottish Government engage with us, we can work on ways to improve the highways for everyone.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I am here today in the House of Commons, but my heart is in Seville. I thank the Secretary of State for his contribution and wish Rangers, the most successful football club in the world, every success tonight.
In conjunction with his Cabinet colleagues, will he ensure that the connectivity review and levelling up lead to benefits right across the entirety of the United Kingdom?
Mr Jack
That is absolutely our intention. I visited Belfast recently to have discussions about connectivity and how we can upgrade the A77 and the A75, and we now want to work with the Scottish Government to achieve that and many other improvements.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
We have regular discussions with the Scottish Government. The Chancellor has already announced £22 billion of support measures, including a tax cut for 2.4 million Scottish workers, worth more than £330 a year for a typical employee. We are committed to financially supporting Scotland. The record block grant of about £41 billion for the next three years enables the Scottish Government to take necessary steps.
Gavin Newlands
While energy costs are skyrocketing under this Government, the Scottish Government are helping to decarbonise the heating of 1 million homes and saving families money while driving the net zero transition. At the same time, households are being hit by record fuel prices. Where they have powers, the Scottish Government are doing what they can by funding record investment in electric vehicle infrastructure and active travel, massively outstripping the UK Government. Why will this Government not match Scotland’s ambitions to drive the move to net zero and reduce living costs for families?
Iain Stewart
Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that the measures to which he refers are in part possible because of the record funding that this Government are giving the Scottish Government. Let me also point to the measures that the Chancellor has announced to help with insulation, including the reduction in VAT on house-warming measures.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Let me first join the Secretary of State in wishing Rangers football club all the very best in Seville tonight—although I wish them no luck whatsoever for the Scottish cup final on Saturday, when they will play the famous Heart of Midlothian FC.
The Cabinet was asked for ideas on how to deal with the cost of living crisis. So far, we have had “Take on more hours”, “Get a better job”, “MOT your car every two years”, “Buy supermarket branded food”, and even “Learn to cook”, but all that the Chancellor has delivered is “Give taxpayers a loan of their own money to pay their bills.” Although oil and gas company profits are more than the combined increase in everyone’s energy bills, the Government are rejecting Labour’s plan to give all households up to £600 off their energy bills with a one-off windfall tax on those profits. Can the Minister tell us what the Scotland Office team’s contribution has been to these ideas, and which of those ludicrous ideas he favours the most?
Iain Stewart
I should begin by saying to the hon. Gentleman that the colour of my tie in no way diminishes my support for Rangers in Seville tonight.
As I have said, the Chancellor has already announced £22 billion of support. That includes 5p off a litre of fuel, £150 council tax rebates, and the hardship fund for local authorities, which gives support to the families experiencing the most difficulties. We have made it clear that the windfall tax to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not a simple solution to every problem—we have to think carefully about what it would mean for investment and jobs, and for our transition to clean energy—and the Chancellor made it clear yesterday that he wants the oil and gas companies to invest their profits in those schemes, and if they do not do so, no option is off the table.
Ian Murray
That is simply not good enough from this Government. Inflation is at a 40-year high, but in reality, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies this morning, it is much higher for most families. There is the weekly shop, the energy bill, petrol for the car, and taxes all rising to the extent that 150,000 more Scots cannot pay their bills, and today—in 2022—too many children are going to bed hungry or cold or both. The Chancellor keeps saying that he “stands ready to act”, but refuses to deliver an emergency Budget. His actions so far have raised taxes to their highest level in 70 years and dropped living standards by the largest amount since the 1950s.
Scotland has two Governments making decisions that are compounding the cost of living crisis. Can the Minister tell us what he is doing to get the Chancellor to act, if he is not acting now?
Iain Stewart
I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the inflationary pressures are global, resulting from the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and other global supply chain problems. This is not an issue unique to the United Kingdom. I have already said that the Chancellor has delivered £22 billion of support for the people of this country; he is keeping a very close eye on the situation, and will intervene where necessary. I should also draw attention to his record during the pandemic, when he stepped in at the right points to support those people.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs advised people in poverty to buy value products, the safeguarding Minister suggested that people should just work “more hours” or get a “better-paid job”, and the Chancellor said that it would be “silly” to help people struggling with the cost of living crisis. Does the Minister have any equally useless advice to add to that of his colleagues for the people facing destitution?
Iain Stewart
I have already pointed out that the Chancellor has given £22 billion-worth of support to the people of this country. He is keeping a close eye on the situation and will step in when necessary. If the hon. Lady is that concerned about the cost of living in Scotland, I would point out that her Government in Edinburgh have a higher tax rate than here in the rest of the UK.
Mhairi Black
Apart from the fact that that is not true, let me say that the Scottish Government have already spent over £1 billion mitigating the worst of Tory cuts. We are investing £770 million per year in the cost of living crisis, increasing Scottish benefits by 6%, doubling the Scottish child payment and mitigating the bedroom tax. Does the Minister not agree that it is about time his Department lifted a finger?
Iain Stewart
My Department is providing the Scottish Government with a record level of support—£41 billion. That is helping them to deliver the policies that the hon. Lady refers to. They might be able to do more if they had not wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on ferries that do not work, or on the First Minister’s independence revival tour of the United States.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out the British Sign Language interpretation of the proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I know that Members across the House will want to join me in offering our best wishes to Rangers for this evening’s match in Seville. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Steve McCabe
The latest “State of Ageing” report reveals that last year in this country, 9,000 people over the age of 60 died because their homes were too cold. Will the Prime Minister give a guarantee that that figure will be lower, not higher, this time next year?
The Prime Minister
I think everybody has every sympathy with people who are facing difficulties with the cost of heating. That is why the Government have stepped up with an extra £9.1 billion in addition to what we are doing with the cold weather payments and the warm home allowance, and we will continue to support people throughout the aftershocks of covid, just as we did throughout the pandemic.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I thank my hon. Friend very much for his campaign, and he is completely right. That is why we have a SEND review, and we will ensure that SEND children and young people can get access to the right support at the right place and at the right time across the country.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I, too, send my best wishes to Rangers. It has been quite an extraordinary story for that football club over the last few years.
A one-off tax on huge oil and gas profits would raise billions of pounds and cut energy bills across the country. The Chancellor rightly says there are two camps on this: you are either for it or you are against it. But in which camp does the Chancellor put himself? He says neither. Well, I am in favour of it. This is the question for the Prime Minister: is he for it, is he against it or is he sitting on the fence like his Chancellor?
The Prime Minister
I remind the House that the right hon. and learned Gentleman struggled to define what a woman is. If he cannot make up his mind on that point, heaven help us. This Government are not, in principle, in favour of higher taxation; of course not. Labour loves it. They love putting up taxes. Dogs bark, cats miaow and Labour puts up taxes. What we want to do is take a sensible approach, governed by the impact on investment and jobs. That is the test of a strong economy, and it is by having a strong economy that we will be able to look after people, as we did during covid and as we will in the aftershocks of covid. I am proud to say it was revealed this week that unemployment has come down to the lowest level since 1974. I do not know how old he was, but I was 10 years old.
Keir Starmer
Hang on; last week the Prime Minister said he will have a look at the idea, and yesterday he voted against it. Anyone picking up the papers today would think the Government are for it, and now he says he is against it again. Clear as mud. To be fair, it is not like the rest of the Cabinet know what they think, either. On the same day, the Chancellor said it was something he is looking at and the Justice Secretary said it would be “disastrous.” The Business Secretary called it a “bad idea,” but he also said he would consider a Spanish-style windfall tax. One minute they are ruling it in, and the next they are ruling it out. When will the Prime Minister stop the hokey-cokey and just back Labour’s plan for a windfall tax to cut household bills?
The Prime Minister
Labour’s plan, always and everywhere, is to raise taxes on business. I remember the right hon. and learned Gentleman campaigning in 2019 on the biggest taxes for business that this country has ever seen. That is their instinct. This country and the world face problems with the cost of energy, driven partly by covid and partly by Putin’s war of choice in Ukraine. We always knew there would be a short-term cost in weening ourselves off Putin’s hydrocarbons and in sanctioning the Russian economy. Everybody in this House voted for those sanctions. We knew it would be tough, but giving in and not sticking the course would ultimately be a far greater economic risk. Of course we will look at all the measures we need to take to get people through to the other side, but the only reason we can do that is because we took the tough decisions that were necessary during the pandemic, which would not have been possible if we had listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Keir Starmer
He just doesn’t get it, does he? He doesn’t actually understand what working families are going through in this country. They are struggling with how they are going to pay their bills. While he dithers, British households are slapped with an extra £53 million on their energy bills every single day. Meanwhile, every single day, North sea oil and gas giants rake in £32 million in unexpected profits. Does he not see that, every single day he delays his inevitable U-turn—he is going to do it—he is choosing to let people struggle when they do not need to?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that this Government have no sympathy for people who are struggling and working. Let me tell him what we are already doing. We are already spending £22 billion. We are already helping people with the cost of living in any way that we can, but the reason why we can do that is that we took the tough decisions to get this country through covid, to make sure that we came out of lockdown in the way that was necessary, and to have a strong economy with robust employment growth. We will continue—[Interruption.] He talks about cutting taxes. In July, we will have the biggest tax cut for 10 years: £330 in cuts, on average, for 30 million people who are paying national insurance contributions. The reason why we can do that is that we have a strong and robust economy. I am going to look at all measures in future to support our people—of course I am—but the only reason why we can do that, and why our companies are in such robust health, is because of the decisions this Government have taken.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister is still pretending the economy is booming. He still has his head in the sand, in the middle of an economic crisis. He keeps saying that more help is coming, but we have heard it all before. On 13 May, he stood there and said,
“We will do more right now.”
A week has passed, and there has been nothing. On 19 April, he stood there and said:
“we will do more as soon as we can”.—[Official Report, 19 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 60.]
A month has passed, and still nothing. The Chancellor said, “Wait until the autumn.” At least he is honest that the plan is to do nothing. Does the Prime Minister not realise that working people across the country cannot afford to wait while he vacillates? It is time to make his mind up.
The Prime Minister
I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what has happened in the past month. We have got 300,000 more people off welfare and into work, on our Way to Work programme. It is because we get people into work that those families, those people, are £6,000 a year better off. It is by getting people into work that we fix the long-term problems of this economy. His answer, in addition to putting up taxes, is to borrow more—we heard it from the shadow Chancellor this morning. She says she wants to borrow almost another £30 billion; that is what she says. Do Members know what that means? It means more pressure on interest rates. It means pressure on mortgages. It means pressure on every family—on every man, woman and child—in this country. That is Labour economic policy. That is why there has never been a Labour Government who left office with unemployment lower than when they came in—that is the reality.
Keir Starmer
On the day when inflation went to 9%—the highest rate for 40 years—the least the watching public can expect is a Prime Minister who concentrates on the cost of living crisis. Clearly, he just cannot make his mind up, so let us have a look at who is for this and who is against it. On one side, we have the chair of Tesco; the chair of John Lewis; the Chair of the Treasury Committee; the Chair of the Education Committee; Lord Hague; and Lord Browne, the old chief executive officer of BP. They all support a windfall tax. Even the current boss of BP says a windfall tax would not discourage investment. On the other side, we have the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who, when he is not sticking notes on people’s desks like some overgrown prefect, is dead set against it. When is the Prime Minister finally going to get a grip, stand up for the people of Britain and get on the right side of the argument?
The Prime Minister
Nothing could be more transparent from this exchange than Labour’s lust to raise taxes on business. We do not relish it. We do not want to do it. Of course we do not want to do it; we believe in jobs, in investment and in growth. As it happens, the oil companies concerned are on track to invest about £70 billion into our economy over the next few years, and they are already taxed at a rate of 40%. What we want to see is investment in the long-term energy provision of our country; Labour has signally failed to do this, cancelling our nuclear power investment. The people suffering from high energy prices in this country today have previous Labour Governments to blame for that mistake. Of course we will look at all sensible measures, but we will be driven by considerations of growth, investment and employment. I just remind the House that unemployment has now hit a record low—or for 50 years, I should say—and half a million more people are now in payroll employment than before the pandemic began.
Keir Starmer
So the Prime Minister is on the side of excess profits for oil and gas companies; we are on the side of working people—there you have it. He clearly does not like me pushing him on this, but the reason why I keep coming back to this subject, and why it is so frustrating that he has not acted, is that so many people are living through this nightmare and feel totally abandoned by their Government.
This week, I spoke to Phoenix Halliwell. A rare kidney condition means that Phoenix has to do dialysis from home, from 10 pm to 7 am, five days a week, just so he can take his daughter Rosie to school. His dialysis is life-saving, so he cannot turn it off. Even though his wife, who is a midwife in the NHS, works extra shifts, during the winter they had to turn their central heating off, and Phoenix skips meals to make ends meet, but their energy bill has still doubled. Phoenix says he feels like he is being “priced out of existence.” And it is not just him: millions of our disabled, elderly and vulnerable neighbours are at the sharp end of this crisis. They simply cannot afford to live with dignity.
The decisions we make here matter. The cost of indecision is enormous. People across the country need action now. The plans are already there; Prime Minister, stop the delay and work with us to put them in place. Do it for households that face bills they cannot afford, and do it for Phoenix, who simply cannot afford to wait.
The Prime Minister
I would be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could send me the details of that sad case. The NHS does cover the costs of those who are on dialysis. By the way, the Opposition voted against the vital investment in the NHS that this country needs.
I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and the House, of the key point: none of this is possible—the investment in the NHS is not possible, the £22 billion that we have already put in is not possible and the further investment we are going to put in is not possible—without the strong economy that this Government have delivered. It is because we took the tough decisions that I have mentioned that we have record low unemployment —or a record low for the last 50 years. The Queen’s Speech that we have been debating is about putting in the infrastructure, skills and technology that will continue to build the platform for growth and jobs in this country. That is what this Government are committed to doing and that is the best way out of economic problems.
By the way, I thought it was fantastic to see Her Majesty the Queen open Crossrail. That has already delivered 72,000 jobs and will produce £90 billion for the whole of the UK economy. Let me ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman: who was the Mayor of London when Crossrail was first starting to be built? And who was the Prime Minister who completed it? We get the big things done. There has never been a Labour Government who left office with unemployment lower than when they began.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a fantastic campaigner for her constituency, as I discovered just the other day. We are recruiting more police officers: 300 more in Lancashire and 13,576 more across the whole of the country. I would of course be happy to arrange the relevant meeting so that we can continue to drive neighbourhood crime—which is already down 33%—down even further.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in wishing Glasgow Rangers Football Club all the best in the final tonight. It is always a joy to see Scottish clubs get to the finals of European competitions.
People did not need to see this morning’s official statistics to know that we are experiencing the highest inflation in 40 years. They know it because they are living with it. Families cannot afford food; they cannot pay their bills—and we are only at the beginning. As always, under the Tories, the poorest are punished the most. For months, people have been crying out for support, but, month after month, a distracted Downing Street has failed to lift a finger to help. Does the Prime Minister still support his Chancellor’s insulting statement that acting now in this cost of living emergency would just be “silly”?
The Prime Minister
I support the Chancellor’s work in lifting the living wage by a record amount, in making sure that people on universal credit pay £1,000 less in tax, in putting another £22 billion into supporting people with the cost of living, and in giving £9.1 billion already to help with the cost of energy. Above all, I support what he has done to deliver a strong economic foundation that makes all that possible.
Ian Blackford
My goodness, talk about an Aesop’s fable! Every day that this Prime Minister remains out of touch, people remain out of pocket. By the way, Prime Minister, £20 a week was taken out of people’s universal credit.
The Prime Minister has just confirmed that he does think it would be “silly” to intervene. The Tories’ only response to this cost of living crisis has been insults and inaction. We have the Tory Back Bencher who thinks that poor people just need cooking lessons, the Tory Minister who thinks that people should just get a “better paid job”, and the Chancellor who thinks it would be “silly” to act now. This is the cost of living crisis from Westminster. For weeks, the Prime Minister has been briefing that it is the Treasury that is to blame for blocking financial support for struggling families. Well, Prime Minister, it is time to stop sniping from the sidelines. If this Chancellor will not deliver an emergency budget, it is time for the Prime Minister to sack the Treasury, to sack the Chancellor, and to put somebody else in office who will act.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman needs to understand. To get back to the crucial point, we have been through covid, and we are facing a spike in global energy prices which has been greatly exacerbated by what Putin is doing in Ukraine. To deal with that, we are putting billions and billions—already £9.1 billion—into supporting people with the cost of energy, cutting fuel duty by record sums, and helping elderly people in all sorts of ways, not least through local councils, with another £1 billion. Everybody in the country knows, though, that we are not through this yet, and everybody can see that. They all know that the Government are going to do more, but they also know that the only reason that we can do so is that, crucially, we have a strong economy with massively high employment figures. That would not have been possible if we had listened to Opposition Members.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his fantastic campaign. He and I have talked about it at length. Clearly, there is a risk to mental health as young people are given unrealistic expectations about how they should look because of the stuff that they see. His kitemark suggestion is extremely useful, and I will make sure that we follow it up as part of our mental health plan.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I join other new fans of Rangers and wish them good luck in Seville tonight?
British farmers are the best in the world. They could play a big part in the answer to how families and pensioners can put food on the table during the cost of living emergency. But from Caithness to Cumbria, from Shropshire to Devon, farmers’ input costs are spiralling upwards: animal feed is up 60% and fertiliser prices have more than doubled. Yet instead of helping Britain’s own food producers the Government are slashing the support payments that farmers rely on, sometimes for up to 50% of their income, even before a new scheme is in place. Will the Prime Minister meet me and farming leaders to understand the extreme challenges they are facing, so that our farmers can do their bit to help families and pensioners to afford to put food on the table during this economic crisis?
The Prime Minister
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do recognise the challenges that farmers are facing with the cost of their inputs in fuel and fertiliser. That is why we are working so hard to abate those costs—not just cutting duty, but doing everything else we can to ensure that we fix the energy crisis. What we are also doing is championing UK food and farming, which has fantastic export markets around the world and now has 73 trade deals to exploit in a world avid, as he rightly says, for delicious, wholesome and nutritious UK food and drink. I would be very happy to organise the relevant meeting with him.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend’s constituents very much for what they are doing to help Ukrainians fleeing war and aggression. I know that Members up and down the country have constituents who are being incredibly generous; I think we can all be proud of the UK’s efforts. Yes, it is true that the UK signed historic declarations the other day with Sweden and Finland to reinforce our mutual security and to fortify Europe’s defences. That has been a massive step change in our co-operation, a thoroughly good thing, and it has been driven in the cases of both Sweden and Finland by the people themselves, who see the logic of NATO membership.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I must respectfully disagree with the implication for the civil service that working from home is everywhere as productive as being in the office. I simply do not accept that. I think we will become more productive and more efficient if, on the whole, we find ways to get back to our desks.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, Prime Minister. I have got a real problem. Some people are not going to get in. Have we seen the time now, and we are only on question 16? I want everybody to help each other so that we can speed up and we might get a few more in.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a massive champion for his constituency of North West Durham. I am delighted that he has been a supporter of County Durham’s city of culture bid—culture in its widest interpretation. I support him in everything he does.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We intend fully to deliver the dementia moonshot, but never forget that Labour was the party that voted against £13 billion a year extra for the NHS.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am told that driving licences are now being issued faster than they were. I am also told that there are no delays in successful online driving licence applications and that customers should receive their licence within a few days. If I am misinformed about that, I trust that my hon. Friend will let me know.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I accept that of course there are economic pressures on our country now caused by the factors that we have mentioned, but that is why we have already increased the minimum wage by £1,000 per year for those who are on it, already increased universal credit by £1,000 a year, and all the other measures—billions and billions of tax that we are putting into supporting incomes. The reason we can do that is that we have strong economic fundamentals, with unemployment—I do not know when the hon. Gentleman was born—at the lowest it has been since 1974. That is giving us the foundation to take our country forward.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
There is a lot of pressure on me to dish out yet another hospital from this Dispatch Box. But I can tell my hon. Friend that we are reviewing all applications for the next eight hospitals in our new hospital programme, which is the biggest in a generation. That is only possible because we have a strong economy. My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for his constituents. We will make a final decision later this year.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I do not know the answer to the hon. Member’s question, but as soon as we can get some information about that, I will make sure that the House is properly informed.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Local residents could have no more powerful voice than that of my hon. Friend. The House will have heard him loud and clear. I know that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will have heard him loud and clear and will make sure that he gets the relevant meeting.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
It is 10 out of 10, because we believe in this Government in adhering to the principles of the ministerial code. By the way, and this is an important point, because there are a lot of attacks on MPs and on what goes on in this place, it is always worth stressing that the vast majority of people who work in the House of Commons—Members of Parliament—are doing a very good job and working very hard and are not misbehaving.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Thirsk and Malton has welcomed asylum seekers from all parts of the world, including Syria and Ukraine, but the Government have just announced that, starting from 31 May, up to 1,500 non-detained young, single males from different parts of the world—asylum seekers—will be kept on a base at the centre of a small rural village of 600 people—a village of children all the way through to elderly residents. That is a village without streetlights and without police presence. It will devastate the community. It will devastate house prices, which will plummet, and the residents of that village will not feel safe to leave their homes alone. Will my right hon. Friend please, on behalf of the community, stop these plans?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend very much, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is engaging with him and others locally about the use of the site. I hear loud and clear what he has had to say. Indeed, I am the recipient of many of his intercessions on this matter, and I understand the strength of feeling in his constituency. I am sure there will be further meetings between him and the Home Office about what we can do.
Foreign National Offender Removal Flights
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
Foreign criminals who abuse our hospitality by committing serious and violent crimes such as murder and rape should be in no doubt of this Government’s determination to deport them. The British people have shown repeatedly at the ballot box that they want an immigration system that is firm and fair. Our new plan for immigration, underpinned by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, is the first major reform of the system in decades. With that Act now law, we are getting on with the job and operationalising the plan.
It is this Conservative Government who are delivering on the will of the British people. Making our streets safer is our priority. That is why we introduced the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, giving the police the powers they need to crack down on violent criminals. It is also why, despite the challenges of covid, we stepped up the removal of criminals who have no right to be here. Since January 2019, over 10,000 foreign national offenders have been removed from the United Kingdom. In the last month alone, flights have left to Albania, Romania, Poland and Lithuania and now, this morning, to Jamaica—a flight I expect to land while I am on my feet.
It was under a Labour Government that the UK Borders Act 2007 was introduced and passed requiring a deportation order to be made where a foreign national has been convicted of an offence in the UK and sentenced to 12 months or more, unless an exception applies. We apply that law, but it is Labour MPs who now howl, time and again imploring us to halt the removal of dangerous foreign criminals from our streets with letters, questions to Parliament and campaigns on Twitter. We have even seen members of the shadow Cabinet defending criminals, with no consideration for the victims or their loved ones. Too often, Opposition MPs are ignoring the law-abiding majority and, by extension, standing on the side of criminals, including paedophiles, murderers and rapists.
Let me set out some facts of the flight that departed this morning, because I know this is of real interest to many Members of this House. First, the offences committed by individuals on the flight include rape of a minor, sexual assault against children, firearms offences, dealing and importing controlled drugs, and other violent crimes such as actual bodily harm. Between them, these individuals had a combined total of 58 convictions for 127 offences. These are extremely serious offences, which have a real and lasting impact on victims and communities. They are not minor matters, as some would have people believe.
Secondly, the flight to Jamaica makes up just 1% of total enforced returns in the year ending September 2021. Criminals who have no right to be in the United Kingdom are regularly removed to countries across the world, and we will continue to do this to keep our citizens safe. Public safety is non-negotiable. However, many more criminals could have left the UK today. What we have seen over the last 24 hours is more last-minute claims facilitated by specialist immigration law firms, as well as representations from Opposition MPs to prevent this flight from leaving.
It is no surprise that the Opposition voted against our Nationality and Borders Bill precisely because it seeks to address the merry-go-round of last-minute claims and to speed up the removal of dangerous criminals. Labour Members fought tooth and nail to prevent that Bill from becoming law, and votes have consequences. Convicted criminals guilty of heinous crimes, including manslaughter, rape, robbery, child sex offences, drug offences and violent crime, and persistent offenders remain in our country; had the legislation been passed more quickly, with Opposition support, those individuals might have been removed from the UK today. They remain here, and it is a stain on our country that they do. However, I assure the British people that we are taking action, and things are changing as we get on with delivering our reforms.
I make no apology for removing criminals who have abused our hospitality, broken our laws, and have no right to be here. I make no apology for doing everything in my power to make our streets safer and stand on the side of actual victims. We stand with the British people. It is time that the Opposition tried that as well.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
The first duty of the British Government is to keep the British people safe, and the Home Office has a responsibility to make sure that rules are fairly enforced, but Ministers are failing to do so and they are blaming everyone else for their failings. The Home Office must deport dangerous foreign criminals who have no right to be in our country and who should be returned to the country of their citizenship, which is precisely why the last Labour Government introduced stronger laws to that effect. The Home Office also has a responsibility to get its deportation decisions right. As the Government have themselves admitted, during the Windrush scandal the Home Office made grave errors in both detention and deportation decisions, and it is currently failing on all counts.
The Opposition are committed to the principles of an immigration system that is firm, fair and well managed. First and foremost, it is deeply troubling that a number of expert reports over recent years have pointed to how Home Office failures have resulted in fewer foreign criminals being deported than should be the case. Indeed, in 2015, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration stated that one in three failures to deport foreign criminals was a result of Home Office failure. Fast-forward to 2022, and the latest immigration figures show that the Home Office is still failing miserably in this regard.
Under the current Prime Minister and Home Secretary, there has been a stark decline in the number of foreign national offenders being returned and deported. In the year ending September 2021, 2,732 foreign national offenders were returned from the UK—20% fewer than the previous year and 47% fewer than in 2019, the year before the pandemic began. Foreign national offender returns had already fallen to 5,128 in 2019. Even more staggering is the fact that, according to a 2019 Public Accounts Committee report, the Home Office had to release six in every 10 migrant detainees whom the Department wanted to deport, and it simply could not explain why this was happening.
The PAC also raised concerns about the need for earlier and better legal advice, which would make it more likely that decisions were accurate and robust, rather than being overturned due to poor decisions later in the process. The Minister will know that the Windrush report identified “low-quality decision-making” and an “irrational…approach to individuals”, and the follow-up report stated that
“there are many examples where the department has not made progress…at all”
on this matter. The level of sheer incompetence is not only a threat to our security; it ultimately erodes the confidence of the British public and foreign nationals alike, because the system fails to fulfil the basic crucial principles of being firm, fair and well managed. The Minister refers to rape, but it is this Government who have presided over rape prosecutions falling to a shameful 1.3%.
The Home Office needs to get this right, but the Minister’s statement was long on bluff and bluster but contained absolutely no substance whatsoever. Perhaps he could therefore answer the following questions: how many foreign offenders have absconded in the last 12 months? What specific steps have been taken to learn the lessons of the Windrush scandal to ensure that this shameful episode is never repeated? Does the Home Office actually have a plan that will address the currently shambolic nature of the deportation system?
The British people deserve better than this. Rather than coming to the Dispatch Box to engage in a frankly rather childish and petulant rant, based on the blame game and finger pointing, the Minister should instead be coming to this Chamber to set out what the Government are actually going to do to fix this broken system.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his contribution, but let me deal with some facts in responding to it. First, I can be very clear for the House’s benefit that more than 10,000 foreign national offenders have been removed from our country since 2019. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are making lots of gestures, but one thing they will recognise, I am sure, is that we have had a pandemic during the last two years, and I think all Members probably realise and recognise the impact that that has had on business as usual in the returns and deportation space. I can also confirm for the House that the vast majority of removals from our country are to European economic area countries, and of course that applies to enforced returns.
The hon. Member mentioned Windrush. This issue is of course completely unrelated to Windrush. None of those being returned are British citizens or nationals, or members of the Windrush generation. Each person’s return is considered on its individual merits and carefully assessed against a background of relevant case law and in the light of published country information, which covers country-specific issues. The case of each person being returned on a charter to Jamaica is referred to the Windrush taskforce, and it is right and proper that that work is done. I can also add—[Interruption.] Well, it is right that this is done properly. Legal aid was also raised. Of course, people can access legal support in detention in the usual way.
The Blair and Brown Governments took an entirely pragmatic and eminently sensible approach to these matters. [Interruption.] Well, I give credit where it is due. Opposition Members criticise, but I will give credit to former Labour Home Secretaries who did the right thing and were committed to ensuring that our laws are upheld, and it is the UK Borders Act 2007 that governs this.
Often, the Opposition talk tough on serious violence, but when they have the opportunity they want, entirely optionally, to let out those who have committed serious violence on our streets, when there are options available to remove them from our country. Labour had the opportunity to change things for the better, but oh no, as always they carp from the sidelines but never have a plan.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
My constituents, and I guess most in the United Kingdom, find it unbelievable that convicted murderers, rapists and paedophiles who are foreign national offenders are not returned immediately to their countries. Can the Minister tell us how on earth last-minute appeals can stop people going on flights? Surely we can at least have a cut-off date beyond which no appeals can be made. Maybe he can also tell the House whether he has been on one of these flights and what the atmosphere is like.
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour speaks with great authority on these matters, and I know the view that people in Northamptonshire take on this. I have been on a removal flight to Poland a few months ago, which was a useful experience for me to understand the end-to-end process. I am grateful for his support for the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which introduces the one-stop processes and priority removal notices that should enable us to break this cycle of endless dither and delay, and constant appeals and claims, so that those individuals are removed from our country more quickly. His constituents can be assured that we are getting on with delivering this.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the SNP spokesperson, Stuart C. McDonald.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I, too, thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, but I do not thank him either for the fact of the statement, which I agree was completely pointless, or for the overblown rhetoric it contained—rhetoric that I more commonly associate with the Minister’s boss than the Minister, who I have a great deal of respect for.
On that note, my first question is, why can we not try to have a sensible, grown-up discussion about this complex policy area? It is frankly nonsense to speak about “sides”. There is a balance to be struck, and it is our responsibility as legislators to debate that sensibly. It is perfectly legitimate for us to question whether the balance is in the right place or to question the disproportionate impact on some communities. As I have pointed out before, in endless urgent questions and on similar topics, Stephen Shaw, the Government-commissioned independent expert, said that the deportation and removal of people brought up here from a young age was “deeply troubling” and entirely “disproportionate”. Yes, of course many deportations are absolutely justified to protect the public, but it is nonsensical to ignore the fact that some are very cruel, particularly when they relate to people who have lived almost all their lives here and have absolutely no connection to the place they are being deported to.
The Government refuse to acknowledge the fact that these decisions can have profound impacts on the family life of the partners, spouses and children of those being deported, and on others, or that it is legitimate to press the Government on that. So let me try a different argument. If someone has been here since they were in infancy, grew up here, was educated here, commits crime here and is potentially dangerous, why is it fair on the country to which they are deported to have to manage that risk, especially if it is possibly far less equipped to do so, rather than this country, where that person was brought up? The Minister talks about letting people out on to the street, but he is letting people out on the street—just not our streets, but those of another country, with which they have absolutely no connection.
Tom Pursglove
What we do as a Government is take responsibility for our returns. We live up to our legal obligations in this space, and that is right and proper, and what the British people expect. But we understandably expect other countries around the world to do the same in taking their immigration offenders and those who have committed criminality in this country and are liable to deportation.
I was slightly surprised to hear the hon. Member say that there has been a lack of interest in these matters in the House. There has been quite a lot of interest, in terms of Twitter commentary and parliamentary questions, and I can certainly vouch for the fact that I have received ministerial correspondence. I also know that Members from across the House have had constituency correspondence on this, so there is certainly interest. On a day when we have had another of these flights—it has attracted considerable media attention, as these matters often do—it is right and proper that I am able to come to the Dispatch Box to set out the steps that the Government are taking. Quite often, Ministers are criticised for not coming to the House to set out such measures. I am here today, I am answering questions from across the House, and I am also here to reassure the British people that we have a plan and we are taking action.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Contrary to the predictable bleating from the Opposition Benches, this is nothing to do with Windrush considerations; the nationality of these individuals is not in question. It is nothing to do with poor prosecution rates; these people have been convicted fairly in a British court. My constituents are sick and tired of this cottage industry of leftie lawyers who are more concerned with keeping serious offenders in the UK than with keeping law-abiding people in the UK safe. Can my hon. Friend tell me the cost of failed deportations, the legal cost of challenges to the UK taxpayer, and the cost of unused tickets for offenders and their chaperones when they are taken off the plane at the last minute—costs that our constituents are having to bear day in, day out?
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that there are significant costs associated with these removal operations. As I say, with scheduled flights more readily available in the period ahead relative to the last two years of covid, I hope that it will be easier to facilitate removals from our country more cost-effectively. As a Government, we spend millions of pounds a year dealing with this, but it is right and proper that those with no right to be here and those who commit serious offences on our streets do not remain in the United Kingdom. That is an obligation that we will continue to live up to. As I say, we live up to the requirements of the law on that, as is right and proper, but I will certainly take away my hon. Friend’s wider point and gladly share any information that I can about specific costings.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Dame Diana Johnson.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
We all appreciate the need to remove dangerous foreign criminals who present a genuine crime or security risk to our country and should not be here. However, the Government’s record on removing foreign criminals has not been good, and to the year ending September 2021 it was at an all-time low. Many have absconded before they could be removed. With the current pressure on the Home Office—including 100,000 asylum claims outstanding, delays in processing Ukraine visas, delays in visas for marriage and work, and problems with processing passport applications—can the Minister confirm that the announced cut of 91,000 civil servants will not apply to the Home Office and that it will have the resources it needs to carry out the work it has to do?
Tom Pursglove
I am confident that we will have the resources that we need to deal with these issues, but I can absolutely say to the Chairman of the Select Committee that it does not help our day-to-day immigration work in other parts of the business to have to deal with these constant cycles of claims, appeals and deliberate attempts to frustrate removal. I would be absolutely delighted if we could free up resource in the Home Office to focus on processing other, related claims—in the asylum space, for example, or Ukrainian claims or whatever they are. We would be better placed if we could do that. As I have consistently said, the abuses of our immigration system that we have seen and continue to see make it much harder to get on with the day-to-day business and be as generous as we can be. We are generous, but we could be doing more if the system were in a better place.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we speed up deportations and give effect to the new Rwanda agreement without the twists and tricks of those who put their political preference for uncontrolled, open borders above our country’s safety and the safety of those who are considering crossing the channel and putting themselves in the hands of criminal gangs?
Tom Pursglove
It is interesting that Ministers are often challenged about our evidence base for wanting to deliver reforms through the new plan for immigration and the Nationality and Borders Act, because the evidence that my hon. Friend points to—she raises these issues consistently—speaks precisely to why the change is necessary and why we are getting on with operationalising the measures in the Act. That work is happening at pace, and we will not waste a moment in bringing that work to fruition.
My hon. Friend is right to recognise the challenges that the current situation is presenting, and I am conscious of the impacts on Dover in particular. She does a tremendous job in raising them with Ministers, and I am keen that we continue that dialogue.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I have written to, I think, my third Minister about the case of a person who stabbed a constituent of mine—he wanted to murder her—and is still in the country. If I write to the Minister, will he undertake to look at the case again and ensure that that person is deported so that my constituent can live in peace?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that sensitive issue so constructively. If she shares the details with me, I will gladly look at it. Again, I am determined that the requirements of the Act are upheld, and we as a Government are determined that those with no right to be here should leave our country without delay. Of course, those who have committed serious crimes and are eligible for deportation under the Act should be deported.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
As my hon. Friend is one of the Ministers in Her Majesty’s Government most able to give a direct answer to a direct question, does he know how many dangerous foreign national offenders were due to be on the deportation flight this morning and, owing to appeals, how many actually left?
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that the Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee always asks incisive questions of his witnesses, and he asks an incisive question of me. There is a public interest in explaining to the House the situation that we have seen overnight. I can confirm that the manifest originally had 112 individuals on it; in the end, only seven left our country on the flight.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Minister will know that in November 2020 the Home Secretary and her team negotiated an agreement with the Government of Jamaica not to remove people who came to the UK under the age of 12, because they believed that we had some responsibility for those whose lives were shaped here. Will the Minister confirm whether that agreement is still in place?
Tom Pursglove
We debated these matters in the Nationality and Borders Public Bill Committee. A person’s age upon arrival to the UK is not an exception to deportation. The length of time that a person has lived in the UK as well as the strength of their social, cultural and family ties are factors that are considered under the article 8 requirements of the immigration rules. Of course, there is ongoing dialogue with all our returns partners and all such matters are discussed as part of those deliberations and discussions.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The vast majority of the public—and, if truth be known, the vast majority in the House—support what the Minister is doing. The Home Office has a responsibility to keep citizens safe, but does he agree that it also has a responsibility to keep the villagers of Linton-on-Ouse safe, so while it is the right idea, it is entirely the wrong location to put 1,500 young, single men—the vast majority of whom will be law-abiding but some will not—in the middle of a village of 600? Will he look again at the plans and put them on hold until the impact on the community has been properly considered? When the refugee agencies are saying that it is the wrong location, the Home Office must pause, look again and stop the plans completely.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which is pertinent to his constituency. I know that he and Members on the Government Benches recognise how important it is that we have a more sustainable accommodation model. We cannot continue to spend about £5 million a day on hotel accommodation in the asylum space. That is not acceptable or sustainable, so we must find solutions to that, including through the accommodation centre model that he is aware of. He raised a number of points and I know that ministerial colleagues in the Department are keen to continue to engage with him and work through those issues.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Home Office has had the report that it commissioned from Stephen Shaw on immigration detention since 2018. What progress is it making in relation to the implementation of its recommendations?
Tom Pursglove
I will happily write to the right hon. Gentleman with an update on the work that we are doing in detention. Of course, we keep all our facilities, policies and approaches under constant review, reflecting feedback that is received, and I would like to provide him with a full update that touches on all the pertinent and relevant issues, which I cannot do on the Floor of the House.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement. A successful deportation programme requires co-operative recipients. Will he name and shame those countries who are not engaging with the Government’s deportation programme—in particular, countries such as Iraq, Iran, Eritrea and Sudan—and say what pressure can be brought to bear on them? Will he consider perhaps denying visas to the nationals of those countries until they engage?
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend raised that point eloquently. There is mixed performance in co-operation on removals and deportations from our country. We continue to have constructive discussions with countries around the world about those arrangements. He will also note that, through the Nationality and Borders Act, we have introduced new visa penalty provisions that should help us to drive forward improvements. It is the responsibility of countries around the world to live up to their obligations and accept their returns as the British Government do.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Deporting extremely vulnerable people when it could lead them to harm, or even their death, is fundamentally wrong. My constituent’s brother has been diagnosed with a severe mental disorder by a consultant psychiatrist. He is in a mental health crisis, and he has attempted suicide. Is the Minister okay to ignore the human rights of extremely vulnerable people in those circumstances?
Tom Pursglove
I remind the hon. Member that we live up to our obligations, as is entirely right and proper, including appropriate human rights law and paying due regard to the UK Borders Act 2007. On the specific issue of vulnerabilities, health and wellbeing is taken into consideration, and proper risk assessments are conducted for all those in scope of removal. It is right that we work through individuals’ circumstances appropriately—[Interruption.]. She can utter that that is not true, but that is a fact.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is outrageous that anyone should conflate the Commonwealth citizens who have come and contributed directly to this country with foreign nationals who have been convicted in our courts of the most serious offences. I find that reprehensible. Will my hon. Friend update the House on the backlog for removing dangerous foreign offenders and the numbers of those in prison now who are likely to be deported at the end of their sentences? Can they be escorted from the prison gates to the plane and flown out of here?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend is right to raise the terminology and language used when we debate these issues. It is right that the correct terminology is applied to reflect the relevant circumstances of the individuals and their cases. I give him an absolute assurance that top of my priorities is delivering a quickening of the pace of removing individuals from our country who have no right to be here and deporting foreign criminals. The reforms that we are introducing are pivotal to achieving progress in that regard.
I come at this issue as the victims’ Minister, too. When we meet the victims of serious criminality and hear their stories, it is difficult not to be hugely troubled, and the suffering and pain that they feel is only exacerbated if dangerous individuals are in our country when they simply should not be here.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I believe I heard the Minister right that there was a manifest today with 122 people on it who were to be deported, but that only seven were finally deported. Does that not just point to the incompetence and the problem we have with this Government? How did they get to be on that manifest when they were not ready to be deported?
Tom Pursglove
I should correct the hon. Gentleman. The manifest began with 112 people on it and seven ended up on the flight leaving overnight. I think the question his constituents ought to be asking him is this. He complains about problems in the system. He had an opportunity to vote for the solution and consistently refused to do so.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The SNP spokesman said it may be very cruel to deport these criminals who are paedophiles, murderers and rapists, but what is very cruel is the suffering of the victims and their families, and any future victims and their families. Will my hon. Friend tell me what work he is doing with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that processes start while people are in prison, so they can be deported as soon as possible when their sentence finishes?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. It will of course be known to her that I am a Minister who spans both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. I am having discussions with the Minister with responsibility for prisons on what more we can do to ensure that individuals who should not be in our country are no longer here for any longer than is absolutely necessary, and that we create greater awareness around release from prison, and removal and deportation from our country where appropriate for the circumstances of individual cases.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
May I say how disrespectful it is that Conservative Members keep talking about lawyers who are, after all, simply protecting people under the laws of this country? It is childish in the extreme that every time we mention that all we hear is, “Lefty lawyers, lefty lawyers.” Who cares what their politics are? They protect people according to the law. One of the people who was taken off the flight because they were protected by a lawyer has severe learning disabilities. In his original trial the judge said he was not a ringleader but had in fact been dragged into it by the ringleader, so he should be protected. Does the Minister class him as dangerous? Does he think that the lawyer was wrong? Does he think the law was wrong to allow that man to stay here? Will he join me in condemning these childish attacks on a very proud profession?
Tom Pursglove
As I alluded to in answering an earlier question, there is a proper process in place that checks for vulnerability and ensures that those cases are dealt with appropriately. I, of course, think it is right and proper that people have access to legal advice and, of course, the legal profession and due process are absolutely crucial to ensuring that these matters are handled sensitively, appropriately and correctly in accordance with the law. We cannot continue to have a completely unbalanced situation where we see abuses of the system and we see that behaviour rewarded. I have to say to you, Mr Speaker, that my eyes water when I see some of the case studies that are put in front of me and some of the instances we are dealing with in the system. It is not acceptable. It is not okay. There is a need for action and that is why we are taking the steps we are.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
If the Labour party wishes to make the case as to why convicted foreign national rapists and paedophiles should remain in this country they are very welcome to test drive it in my constituency and elsewhere. Meanwhile, does my hon. Friend agree that, although it is absolutely right and fair since we left the European Union that any foreign national with a sentence of over 12 months will be automatically deported, that does, of course, put the emphasis on the Home Office to make sure that its legal ducks are in a row and that the right people are deported?
Tom Pursglove
That caseworking side of things is so important in processing these cases, ensuring they are handled as expeditiously as possible and there is not needless delay. That is something I am looking at intensively and that is why we have the new plan for immigration and the reforms we are introducing. As I have said, I constantly have at the forefront of my mind the victims of criminality when reaching decisions and considering cases, and reading the representations that are made. When we talk in this House about serious violence, for example, and there are calls for root and branch action to tackle it, it is impossible to divorce what we are talking about today from the work we are doing more widely in Government to tackle that very harm and that scourge on our society.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is believed that young adults who are being deported arrived in the UK as minors. The Home Office and the courts say that there is no such thing as a homegrown criminal, but at present no weight is being placed on rehabilitation. I am about rehabilitation. Does the Minister believe that weight should be placed on rehabilitation, especially for young people who came into this country as minors and made a mistake and committed a crime?
Tom Pursglove
I, too, think there is absolutely a place for rehabilitation within the criminal justice system. That is right and proper, and something I think we all broadly accept across the House, but what we are talking about here is serious criminality that is a scourge on our society and our communities, and causes real harm to real people and real families in the communities we represent. That is front and centre in the decisions we make, and of course we act in accordance with our legal responsibilities under the legislation as it stands. I have to say that I am hearing a sort of orchestra of suggestion that we are getting decisions wrong. We are getting decisions right on these cases. It is the process that is flawed and we are fixing it.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I encourage my hon. Friend to come to the Dispatch Box more often, because that was one of the best Government statements we have had in recent times? Residents in the Kettering constituency want foreign national offenders who have committed serious and violent offences to be deported and they will be appalled that, thanks to the intervention of lefty, woke human rights immigration lawyers, 107 of those who should have left our shores this morning remain on British soil. May I urge my hon. Friend to go further and faster, arrange more flights and attach conditions so that those who are deported are never allowed to re-enter the United Kingdom?
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that the status quo is thoroughly depressing. I know that, behind people in Corby and east Northamptonshire, Kettering people are very sound and they are right to raise this issue. [Interruption.] And of course people in Wellingborough, too. They are right to demand action. They are right to be impatient for the change we have promised. We will continue to work hard and constructively to deliver the reforms we are making. The issue about people returning in breach of a deportation order is one that I am conscious of. The changes we are making through the Act, particularly around illegal entry, should help us to clamp down on that.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I know from both my own case work and my work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention that the Home Office decision-making process is often flawed and that mistakes are often made. Can the Minister provide an updated figure on the number of cases where somebody has been removed from this country in error and how much compensation the Government have had to pay out to those people as a result?
Tom Pursglove
We are driving comprehensive reform of the whole asylum and migration system through the new plan for immigration. The hon. Lady asks for specific statistics, which I do not have to hand today. I will gladly take away her question and write to her. If I can provide more specific information, I will.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the simple truth is that had the Opposition supported our Nationality and Borders Act and helped us to pass this important legislation into law sooner, some of the dangerous criminals being prevented from removal would not now be on our streets?
Tom Pursglove
Well, rather like for me, some of the dither and delay we saw in getting on and passing that legislation has not escaped my hon. Friend’s attention. I do not think there is any time to waste in getting on and delivering those reforms. The British people have spoken consistently about the need for action. We have a plan. It is the only credible plan that will fundamentally improve matters and that is why we are getting on and operationalising it.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Me and my constituents in Burnley and Padiham are sick and tired of the Labour party approach to this issue—to stand on the side of murderers, paedophiles and rapists. My constituents want to see more deportations of these foreign criminals and more flights, so I urge the Minister to lay on more flights and publicise them, so that people know that we are on the side of the law-abiding majority and the victims of these awful crimes.
Tom Pursglove
It is absolutely right and proper that the British Government live up to their legal obligations around the deportation of foreign national offenders from our country who have committed serious acts of crime that have blighted our communities and that blight communities such as my hon. Friend’s in Burnley. He is right to raise this issue, and he has done so a number of times with me during our conversations over recent months. He is impatient, as I am, for the reform to come to fruition. We will continue to drive this agenda forward because it is the right thing to do to keep people in our communities safe from the harms that these sorts of individuals perpetrate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for clearly outlining a workable strategy. The Government’s intention to deport criminals, including paedophiles, murderers and rapists, is the right thing to do. The Government’s responsibility is to protect the citizens of this country, and that is where our priorities are. Will the Minister ensure that everything is being done in accordance with the law, and will he outline the steps that are being taken to ensure that human rights for those people are protected not simply during the flight, but as they get off the plane at their destination and in the days that follow, as they attempt to integrate in society, wherever that destination may be?
Tom Pursglove
At all times, the UK Government act in accordance with their obligations, as is right and proper. I have been on a removal flight to see for myself the work that goes on. The teams that carry out the work act with complete respect and dignity for the individuals who are in their care for the duration of that process. They work tirelessly at that. I was hugely impressed by what I saw, by their dedication and commitment to that work, and by the vast experience that many of those individuals have in facilitating removals and deportations from our country every week of the year. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that that work is carried out entirely properly.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke are delighted that we have shipped off over 10,000 foreign national offenders since 2019, because they do not deserve to have their feet on these great British shores. However, my constituents are flabbergasted that the woke, wet and wobbly lot opposite are on the side of their leftie woke warrior lawyers in making sure that these rapists and paedophiles remain in our United Kingdom, rather than actually standing up for the British people and their safety. But it is no surprise because of Labour Members’ unhealthy obsession with free movement and open borders, thinking that anyone who wants border control is a bigot and that borders are racist. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time that the Labour party got on the side of the British people and backed our having safer streets?
Tom Pursglove
I have to say, I had a bit of an inkling of what the views of people in Stoke-on-Trent might be on this issue. My hon. Friend speaks with great passion on behalf of his constituents, who want to see action in this area and safer streets. One of the things that people across the country find slightly frustrating is that some individuals who oppose our plans are not straightforward about their motivations and intentions. If we wish to have a country with no border controls, people should be honest about that fact. That is a perfectly legitimate argument to proceed with, but it is one with which I do not agree.
Points of Order
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised the case of someone who undergoes home dialysis, and the Prime Minister stated that the NHS covers the cost of that dialysis. The amount of money that the NHS makes available only partially covers the cost of dialysis and people are reimbursed only after they have paid their bill. That answer misrepresented the position of people who are on home dialysis, and yet again, we find ourselves asking the question: when will the Prime Minister come back and correct the record?
Mr Speaker
As the hon. Member knows, the answers that are given are not a question for me. However, that is on the record and it is up to individual Members to correct it.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although we do not yet know how many candidates there will be for the election of the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, because the nominations close next Tuesday, we know that it will be a contested election and that it will take place next Wednesday. I have received various missives from colleagues who say that they will be away on parliamentary business next Wednesday. Although this is a matter for the House, how can we facilitate the participation in that ballot of Members who will be missing, through a proxy vote or some other voting system?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for notice of his point of order. He is correct that the rules of the House do not allow the use of proxy votes in the circumstances described, unless a proxy vote is already in place. I do not think that it is right to change the procedures on the hoof, but this is an important point that might be looked at before future elections. I am sure that he will have been to see, and had a great conversation with, the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip and, hopefully, that will all have been taken on board.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you please advise me on the remedial action that could be taken to correct the record following the claim that was made at Prime Minister’s questions by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who asserted that “the Government are slashing the support payments that farmers rely on” before a new scheme is even introduced? That claim is simply incorrect.
Mr Speaker
It is not for me to ensure the accuracy of what is said by Members. It is their responsibility and, if a mistake has been made, it is that Member’s responsibility to correct the record. We do not want to have a full debate on Prime Minister’s questions either.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise the issue of the statement today. The fact that a Minister came to the House to discuss an important issue, and was scrutinised for about an hour, is wholly the way in which this democracy should work. Is there any way that you could get it through to some other Ministers that they should do that on more occasions?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member has put his case forward, but I totally agree, once again, that it is helpful that the House hears something first and that it is not heard through the media. I am sure that Ministers will have listened to him and will hopefully take it on board.
Debate on the Address
Achieving Economic Growth
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 229 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 59 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:24 - The House divided: - Ayes: 59 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:35 - The House divided: - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 229 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected amendment (w) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which will be moved at the start of the debate, and amendments (m) and (s) which will be moved at the end of the debate. I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment (w), at the end of the Question to add:
“but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech fails to bring forward immediately an emergency budget to tackle the cost of living crisis or to set out a new approach to the economy that will end 12 years of slow growth and high taxation under successive Conservative Governments.”
We meet today when inflation has hit its highest level for 40 years. Every pound that people had last year can purchase only 91p-worth of goods today; that is what inflation of 9% means. Our country has a cost of living crisis and a growth crisis, with prices rising, growth downgraded and no plan for the future. None of this, though, is inevitable. It is a consequence of Conservative decisions and the direction they have taken our economy in over the past 12 years.
The Government are increasingly a rudderless ship, heading to the rocks, while they are willing to watch people financially drown in the process. Where is the urgency and the action? The time to change course is now. We need an emergency Budget to deal with the inadequacy of the Chancellor’s spring statement, with a windfall tax to help to get bills down and to help families and pensioners to weather the storm. On the day that inflation has reached a 40-year high, the Chancellor is missing in action. As energy bills and anxiety levels soar, the response from the Government diminishes in comparison.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The hon. Lady asks where the action is. Will she accept that today £150 is going into the bank accounts of people in council tax bands A to D from councils across this country?
Rachel Reeves
The action that Labour proposes is a windfall tax to take up to £600 off people’s bills. As the hon. Lady knows, energy bills have gone up 54%, by an average of £693. With all respect, £150 just does not cut it.
Labour first proposed a windfall tax on 9 January, more than four months ago, and what was the first response from a Conservative Minister? It was to insist that a windfall tax would be unfair because Shell and BP were “struggling”. North sea oil and gas producers are making £32 million a day in unexpected profits. Meanwhile, parents trying to pay their bills are going without food so that their children do not miss meals—that is struggling. We now know that each and every day the Conservatives delay introducing a windfall tax, families and pensioners are forking out £53 million more in their energy bills.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Last night, my party supported the amendment relating to oil and gas that was moved by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). The hon. Lady is right: there is a real need to protect our pensioners. This morning, a constituent told me that his brother, a pensioner, sleeps in a sleeping bag to keep warm; another pensioner tells me that she can turn the heating on in her house for only one hour a day. One way of helping our pensioners would be through the proposal that the hon. Lady refers to: a windfall tax on those who are making exorbitant profits.
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Member for speaking so powerfully about his constituents. After years of work and contribution to this country, a pensioner is sleeping in a sleeping bag to keep warm.
The Government got rid of the triple lock, and now they are refusing to implement a windfall tax. Every day, the case for Labour’s windfall tax gets stronger, while the Tory defence for refusing to act gets weaker and weaker, yet last night every single Conservative MP voted against a windfall tax for the third time. People can no longer afford to pay for the Government’s mistakes. The Government should put the national interest first and follow Labour’s advice. It is time to do the right thing; it is time to put the needs of people first; it is time to introduce a windfall tax to get bills down.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady clarify one thing? There is a bit of dispute about how much a windfall tax would raise per household. There are about 25 million households in the UK. Will the hon. Lady confirm how much money per household a windfall tax would actually raise?
Rachel Reeves
A windfall tax would raise about £3 billion. That, combined with the extra VAT that the Government are receiving because prices have gone up so much, could go directly towards taking money off people’s bills. It would make a real impact now. Every single day, the energy companies are making £32 million in unexpected profits. This Government increase taxes on working people; a Labour Government would increase taxes on the big oil and gas companies.
The cost of living crisis is being made worse by a wage crisis, as years of Conservative Governments have failed to stand up for working people. At the Conservative party conference last year, the Prime Minister bragged of plans for a high-wage economy. How is that going? Let me update the House. In the six months since then, average real-terms pay has not risen, but fallen. Behind the headline figures, data released yesterday by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows not only that workers are experiencing a fall in their real pay, but that the gap between those earning most and those earning least is widening. For the hospital porters, the supermarket assistants, the delivery drivers—the very people who worked tirelessly through the pandemic to keep this country going—wages are in no way keeping up with the rising cost of living.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I just want clarification of the figures, because they are very important. The hon. Lady said that a windfall tax would raise £3 billion; among 25 million households, that is just over £100 each, which is less than the Government are giving. She then said that there would be £600 for each household, but that would cost about £18 billion, which is £15 billion more than the windfall tax would raise. Where would that extra £15 billion come from? Would it come from an increase in Government borrowing?
Rachel Reeves
Our scheme is very clear. We would introduce a windfall tax, use that money to reduce VAT on gas and electricity bills from 5% to zero, and expand the warm home discount from the measly £140 that people get today to £400. We would fund that through the windfall tax, through the additional VAT receipts that the Government are getting in at the moment because prices are so high, and through receipts from the additional corporation tax that the oil and gas companies are paying. The Government will end up doing this. The only question is when they will get on and deliver for their constituents. Oil and gas companies are making record profits and people are paying record bills. It is a question of whose side you are on. The Government are very clear that they are on the side of the oil and gas companies; the Opposition are very clear that we are on the side of ordinary families and pensioners.
The Government have failed to introduce not only the windfall tax, but the employment Bill that has been repeatedly promised. There is a real-world price: allowing scandalous threats of fire and rehire to continue to drive down conditions at work, not just in the appalling P&O case, but in other sectors. Fire and rehire should have been outlawed, but thanks to this Government’s actions it is being encouraged. Employment rights for the modern world of work will not just protect workers, but boost growth and financial security. That makes for a stronger economy with firm foundations, rather than allowing a race to the bottom that takes away dignity as well as eroding family finances.
Rachel Reeves
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves).
Ellie Reeves
As well as struggling with rising fuel bills and food prices, many of my constituents are worried about their precarious work, about not knowing from one week to the next what hours they will get, and about being fired by unscrupulous employers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Queen’s Speech was a missed opportunity to introduce the long-awaited employment Bill, which would ensure that workers get the dignity and security that they desperately need?
Rachel Reeves
The sad truth is that the Government used to agree. Introducing an employment Bill was in their manifesto; in fact, they have been promising it for five or six years. Let us have that employment Bill to protect people at work, so that working people do not have to resort to food banks, and so that they have the security and dignity that work should provide.
April’s International Monetary Fund data show that families in Britain are more exposed to the cost of living crisis than countries such as Germany, France and the US because of depleted savings. Savings are declining and household debt is on the rise, not because millions of people can no longer manage a budget, but because millions of people cannot afford a Conservative Government. Working families are increasingly struggling with their budgets because the Chancellor has failed to act in his Budgets. The Food Foundation believes that since January, 2 million people have not eaten food for at least a whole day, because they could not afford to.
Rachel Reeves
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).
Geraint Davies
My hon. Friend knows that food banks were used by something like 26,000 people in 2010 and are now used by 2.6 million people—100 times as many. Does she agree that the economy’s growth now contrasts dismally with its 40% growth in the 10 years to 2008 under Labour? The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that if we were on the same growth trend, the average person would be £11,000 better off and could therefore weather the storms that we are suffering because of the Tory Government.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the Tory growth penalty—the effect of the lack of growth in the economy. Average earnings are £11,000 less than if growth had stayed at the same rate as under the last Labour Government.
My hon. Friend mentioned a hundredfold increase in food bank use. This is not normal; it is the consequence of Conservative Governments’ choices. Meanwhile, what have we heard in recent weeks? We have heard suggestions from Ministers about what people can do in their own lives to deal with the cost of living crisis. The Prime Minister thinks that a 77-year-old pensioner who rides on the bus all day to keep warm should be grateful for her discounted fares; the Environment Secretary has lectured people struggling with the cost of food, telling them to “buy own brands”; and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has treated the need for an emergency Budget as if it were an audition for a comedy club. Another out-of-touch Minister has told people, just this week, that if they are struggling financially they should simply work more hours or get another job—as if it were as easy as that. The Chancellor continues to insult the public’s intelligence by suggesting that a compulsory £200 loan—a loan that must be repaid—is somehow not a loan, and now blames a computer system for his decision not to help the least well-off. What planet are they on?
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that given that wages have been falling for the last 14 years and inflation is now at 9%, or 11% for the poorest families, there is an alternative to people’s wages being squeezed—that the Government could squeeze profits instead? Shell and BP raked in more than £12 billion in the first three months of this year alone, and it is shameful that every Conservative Member voted against a windfall tax yesterday when they had the chance to support it.
Rachel Reeves
Conservative Members voted against the windfall tax not for the first time, not for the second time, but for the third time. Every single Conservative MP opposed what they know is the right thing to do. A Labour Government would tackle the cost of living crisis head-on. We would introduce a windfall tax on oil and gas producer profits to cut household bills by up to £600, a home insulation policy that would save millions of households up to £400 a year, and a discount on business rates for high street firms funded by a tax on the online giants. Perhaps the Chief Secretary can tell us in his speech why the Government will not abolish the unfair, outdated and unjustifiable non-dom tax status, and use that money to keep taxes on working people down.
Finally, Labour would put a stop to the Chancellor’s fraud failures, which allowed £11.8 billion of taxpayer funds to go criminal gangs, drug dealers and worse. We would claw back every penny of taxpayers’ money that we could, because the public are sick of being ripped off and they want their money back.
We are now in the worst of all possible worlds, with inflation high and rising, and growth low and falling—in other words, there is stagflation. This Conservative Government must address the underlying weaknesses in our economy, which are the result of years of Tory failure. Growth has stagnated, not just this year but over the last 12 years, falling from 2% on average under the last Labour Government to just 1.5% a year in the decade leading up to the pandemic.
The Conservatives have failed to work with British industries—employers and trade unions—to create the economic growth that would benefit everyone, and for 12 years that approach has sown chaos and uncertainty, making it impossible for businesses to invest with confidence. Now the UK economy has the worst growth projections of any G20 economy but one: Russia.
Rachel Reeves
The Bank of England has issued a stark warning of a downturn next year, with GDP projected to fall, and it is not set to get much better after that. [Interruption.] The Chief Secretary says, from a sedentary position, that it is set to get better. Oh, yes—growth in the following year is expected to be 0.25%, almost 10 times lower than what the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted in March. Well, done, Tory Government!
We have heard nothing from this Conservative Government about what they will do to change the situation, and if the Chief Secretary is proud of that record, good luck to him. The Government have no plan to provide the catalytic investment that we need to create new markets, no plan to get trade moving again and tackle the supply chain problems facing businesses, and no plan for a new industrial strategy to make the most of Britain’s potential, bringing good jobs to all parts of Britain. The Conservatives have become the low-growth party, and our country is paying the price.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some powerful points about the fall in growth. I am sure she will be as concerned as I am about the statistics which show the decline in business investment, which I think is down by 9%. We are seeing a 34% fall in automotive production, which is a massive hit for the UK economy. The impact on our foreign competitors is less, because those countries have a strategy. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government seem not to have an industrial strategy—for gaming semiconductor production, for example? Does she agree that that is what is needed, and that is what a Labour Government would do?
Rachel Reeves
The figures from the International Monetary Fund show that investment as a proportion of our economy in the UK is 18%, if we take both public and private investment into account. In other similar economies that the IMF looks at, it is 23%. If we add that up over the next six years—the IMF’s forecast horizon—we see a projection of £1 trillion less investment in the UK than in other countries. These are huge missed opportunities to create the jobs and industries of the future that my hon. Friend wants to see in Warwick and Leamington and all of us want to see in our constituencies.
The Government’s lack of action is felt by businesses. In April, the price of materials for UK manufacturers increased at its fastest rate since records began, with prices up by nearly a fifth on the previous year. When I speak to businesses, they are worried about falling consumer confidence and a lack of spending power, as well as the costs that they are having to face.
Rachel Reeves
The British Retail Consortium has explained that the rising cost of living has crushed consumer confidence and put the brakes on consumer spending. So many businesses that worked tirelessly to adapt and survive the pandemic were banking on this year to recover, and it is just not happening.
Rachel Reeves
We could be so much better. Our geography, our universities and our industrial heritage offer so much potential, but the Government do not do enough to unlock it. I have seen the brilliant businesses and emerging industries that will power our economy and lead the world: businesses such as Nanopore, a technology and life sciences firm that started as a research team at Oxford University and now employs more than 600 people; Rolls-Royce in Derby—I was there a couple of weeks ago—which is leading pioneering research with world-leading engineers developing carbon-neutral technologies; and Castleton Mills in my own city of Leeds, once a key part of West Yorkshire’s textiles industry but now a creative, collaborative space housing freelancers, remote workers and start-up businesses.
Rachel Reeves
However, the success that I see all around the country could be strengthened with strong leadership and vision from the Government. Ministers are more concerned about the next headline or photoshoot than about creating credible plans for growth and success. Today, as inflation spirals out of control, where is the £3.4 million PR budget in the Treasury, and what is the Treasury doing?
Rachel Reeves
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. [Hon. Members: “Hurray!”]
Kevin Hollinrake
I will sit here again next time.
The hon. Lady mentioned earlier the support for households in the form of the £200 discount on their energy bills. That went to 100% of households. The £150 council tax deduction reached 80% of households. Will the hon. Lady tell us what percentage of households would receive the £600 per household to which she referred?
Rachel Reeves
It is great to see Conservative Members taking so much interest in this. It suggests to me that a policy from them on the windfall tax is coming soon, and it will be welcome.
We have said that the £600 would go to a third of households. We would increase the warm home discount from £140 to £400, and that would go to a third of households. The hon. Member is, like me, an MP in Yorkshire. Across Yorkshire, every day, an extra £4.5 million is spent on energy costs as a result of the Conservative party’s failure. A total of £220 million has been spent in the seven weeks since the energy price cap went up. Constituents in Thirsk and Malton, like my constituents in Leeds West, are looking for answers, and an expansion of the warm home discount, paid for by a windfall tax, would make a massive difference throughout our region in Yorkshire.
We need an ambitious plan for the future. That is why Labour will scrap business rates, and the system that replaces them will incentivise investment, promote entrepreneurship and bring life back to our high streets. The race is on for the next generation of jobs, and Labour will make the investment we need with a growth plan to bring opportunities to the whole country, working in partnership with great British industries to get us to net zero and revitalise coastal communities and former industrialised towns. We do not want to be importing all the technologies and products we need; if we can make it here in Britain, we should do so. That is why a Labour Government will buy, make and sell more here at home.
We will make Brexit work, with a bespoke EU-UK veterinary agreement to cut red tape for the food and agriculture industries and mutual recognition of professional qualifications to help our fantastic business services industries and to make it easier for our creative industries to tour and perform. Unlike the Conservatives, Labour will ensure that our economy grows and prosperity is shared.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On the matter of making Brexit work, there is a concern that the United Kingdom now mirrors the United States with its labour shortages, rather than mirroring the right to work across the European Union. This is having a drastic effect on the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Can the hon. Member say a wee bit more about how they want to emulate Europe’s labour market situation rather than that of the United States with its labour shortages?
Rachel Reeves
The best way to fill those gaps in the labour market is to be training people here in Britain. We have seen the nurses shortage in the papers today. We are having to bring in nurses from all around the world because we are not training nurses here. There are job vacancies here in Britain, and we need to ensure that our young people get the opportunities to train for those high-paid and high-skilled jobs here in Britain. [Interruption.] The Minister says that no one disputes that, so why are the Government not doing it?
The Tories are out of touch and they are out of ideas. They are the party of high taxes because they are the party of low growth. Their choices have made the cost of living crisis much worse than it needed to be. Their decisions have left those with the least fearing for the future. The Tories cannot be trusted with public money. They have handed billions to their friends, to their donors and to fraudsters. We need an emergency Budget with a windfall tax to keep energy bills down. We need a Government that take growth seriously. We need a new vision for a fairer and more prosperous economy. Labour has a different economic approach: pro-worker and pro-business, with a plan to unleash the potential of both. A Labour Government would steer our country through these difficult times together. I urge Members across the House to do the right thing today and vote for an emergency Budget to get our country and our economy back on track.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
It is a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government. I have to say that I thought that was an uncharacteristically poor speech by the shadow Chancellor, and one that failed to rise to the magnitude of the moment. In the shadow of the pandemic and with war on our continent, everyone understands that these are challenging times and that people are anxious about the future. The measure of a Government of any colour is the determination and imagination with which they respond to the challenges of the day. We responded quickly and comprehensively to the greatest challenge of our generation at the outset of the pandemic. Looking forward, we are helping to create the conditions for economic growth by investing in skills, helping businesses to grow and building the infrastructure that provides the backbone of every economy around the world. The crucial thing—the reason that today’s debate is so important—is that we focus on that growth, and this Queen’s Speech does just that.
Let me begin by noting that overall our economy has proved very resilient. Last year the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Growth in the first quarter—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members listened, they might learn something. Growth in the first quarter was stronger than in the US, Germany and Italy, and pushed output to 0.7% above its pre-pandemic level at the end of 2019. The IMF forecasts that the UK will be the second-fastest growing G7 economy this year, and that, after other economies have caught up as they recover more slowly from the pandemic, we will have the fastest growth in 2025 and 2026.
Far from the dire forecasts about unemployment in 2020 being realised, we see that unemployment has fallen back to just 3.7%, which is below pre-pandemic levels and the lowest since 1974. The fact that 12 million jobs and incomes were protected during the pandemic, that unemployment is now lower than before the pandemic and that we were the fastest-growing economy in the G7 last year is all thanks to the careful economic stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and this Conservative Government.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Given that inflation is now at 9%—I think that that is a 40-year high—does the Minister regret abandoning the triple lock and putting so many pensioners into poverty?
Mr Clarke
As I will set out during my remarks, we have to be very careful, in setting our tax and welfare policies, that we do not worsen the very problems we are trying to manage. That is an important dynamic that we have to hold in balance as we seek to set fair offers on all these subjects.
It is still little more than two years since the onset of the pandemic and, as the Prime Minister told the House this week, its impact has been enormous, with the largest recession on record requiring a Government response amounting to nearly £400 billion. As the House well knows, the Government moved heaven and earth to support our economy, doing things that only weeks earlier no one could ever have expected us to even need to do, and those efforts worked. Human nature being human nature, it is easy to take it for granted when disaster is avoided, but there was nothing inevitable about this. The House and this country owe my right hon. Friend the Chancellor our thanks for steering us through the situation in such strong condition. The challenges we face now are global in origin and impact. We are seeing inflation as a consequence of the unsteady and tentative unlocking of the global economy post-pandemic. One need only look at cities such as Shanghai to see how disrupted the global supply chains currently are. This is particularly concentrated in fields such as energy and food.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the Chancellor and his Ministers are moving heaven and earth to help the good British people, but would he agree that certain individuals also moved heaven and earth to give out billions of pounds’-worth of crony covid contracts to companies connected to Tory donors and friends? Who could forget, for example, that 11 PPE contracts were dished out to a pest control company, and that £252 million ended up going not to a PPE specialist but to a company specialising in offshore and foreign currency trading? Does he agree that, had those individuals not moved heaven and earth for those particular companies, the good, hard-working British people would not be in such a predicament now?
Mr Clarke
It is important to set out a number of facts about this situation, because it is the subject of repeated misrepresentation. The first thing to say is that 97% of all PPE that was purchased by the Government was fit for use. Secondly, we obviously had to proceed at enormous speed, given the exigencies of the pandemic, to procure that PPE. Those on the Opposition Benches were leading the charge on that. To the hon. Gentleman’s point about some of the sources that were being advocated, I would remind him that the shadow Chancellor herself recommended that we sought PPE from a historical re-enactment clothing company as part of the proposed solution. The point I would make is that there was a desperate situation and we responded to it at pace. Where there has been fraud against the Exchequer, I am as clear as any Minister and any Member of this House that we should pursue it, and we are funding a dedicated taxpayer protection taskforce from HMRC with £100 million to do exactly that.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I understand that lots of countries in the world have been through similar problems and also have a cost of living crisis, but can the Minister explain why the British Government are being so miserly when Greece, which has a similar set of issues and has been through much more difficult economic times in the past 12 years, is managing to meet 80% of the additional costs of fuel bills this year for the poorest households?
Mr Clarke
One has to set in context the action that each Government take against their particular situation and the particular economic options open to them, including the impact on taxes, of which we are acutely aware. This Government have consistently shown that we will rise to the challenge. Anyone who says that £22 billion is miserly is simply misreading the economic reality in a way that speaks volumes about the Labour party’s wider approach to budgeting responsibly and managing our public finances to protect the most vulnerable in society and the services on which they rely.
To return to the situation as it stands today, the Bank of England has said that it expects inflation to peak at just over 10% in the fourth quarter of this year, before returning to target over the following year. The reality is that high global energy prices and supply chain pressures are pushing up prices in economies across the world, including in the United Kingdom, and that has been significantly worsened by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has injected so much uncertainty into the economic outlook.
We are monitoring the data very closely. I do not dispute that these challenges are a setback to our recovery and are having a significant impact on the cost of living, which was the subject of yesterday’s debate led by the Chancellor. However, last year’s strong rebound in growth put us in a good underlying economic position, with half a million more people on the payroll now than before the pandemic, and with GDP above pre-pandemic levels.
As we heard yesterday, the Chancellor understands the effect of inflation on households and is providing support worth £22 billion this year to ease those pressures. He will keep all those issues under close review and we will bring forward a programme of measures at such time as they will make the right difference in a targeted way, but we must be careful not to fuel the very challenges that we are working to overcome, be that inflation or the size of our public debt.
We will spend £83 billion on debt interest this year. We must, and we will, manage the public finances responsibly because we must not saddle future generations with our debt and because we want to reduce the burden of personal taxation.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm the nature of that £83 billion figure? Is it a cash demand on the Government, or is a substantial part of it rolled over so that we do not need to pay and it is merely attached to index-linked bonds?
Mr Clarke
Some of it falls due as cash payments and some of it is rolled over. The reality is that, when we are running an £83 billion interest payment on an annualised basis, we will not be in a position to maintain market confidence unless we set out a sustainable trajectory to address it. A sustainable solution cannot be to borrow our way out of the situation; it must be to grow our economy and to create high-skilled, high-waged jobs, and we have a comprehensive plan to do so. That is the choice we have made as a Government and it is absolutely the right one.
Geraint Davies
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned that there are 500,000 more people on payrolls, but he neglected to say that that does not include self-employed people. Will he confirm that, according to the Office for National Statistics, there are, in fact, 444,000 fewer people in work than before the pandemic, not, as he implied, half a million more?
Mr Clarke
There are half a million more people on payrolls, and I was very clear about that. The headline unemployment rate is 3.7%, which we should celebrate. It is a genuine public policy success and contrasts starkly with the situation we inherited in 2010. I, certainly, am determined to continue supporting it by making sure our economic policy is the right one.
The Labour party has only one answer to every problem: spending more. It has made, by our calculations, £418 billion-worth of spending commitments, while setting out precisely how £8 billion would be funded. The scale of spending that Labour would undertake is vast, but what concerns me, and should concern us all, is the lack of seriousness with which Labour considers how to fund its commitments. That is the luxury of being in opposition, whereas in government there is no ducking away from the big challenges with which we are grappling.
Achieving economic growth is not as simple as putting one’s foot down on the accelerator. It is a far subtler and more balanced enterprise that includes multiple carefully weighed decisions that are designed to mutually reinforce each other over time.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that the private sector is our economy’s engine of growth? Businesses are getting up, working hard and developing the growth, jobs and prosperity this country needs. We cannot rely on the state to do everything. Private businesses must be supported.
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend is exactly right. He is always a fantastic advocate for the car industry in his part of the midlands. We need to make sure that the engine of growth is able to fire, and our plan for growth, published last year, sets out how we will increase investment in the three pillars of growth: infrastructure, skills and innovation.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
On business opportunities, specifically for small and medium-sized business, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research basically is pouring cold water on the Government’s bunkum on the benefits of Brexit for the economy, so I wonder whether the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agrees or disagrees, when it comes to small and medium-sized businesses that need people in the country now, not trained 10 years down the line, that links with the EU through trade and potential labour market mobility have benefited Northern Ireland. Does he agree or disagree?
Mr Clarke
I am clear that we were right to implement the majority decision of the people of this country to leave the European Union. The Procurement Bill is designed precisely to make sure that small and medium-sized businesses can access the benefits of public procurement in a way that works to their considerable benefit.
We have made excellent progress against our plan for growth: a landmark capital uplift in the spending review I chaired last autumn; the creation of the UK Infrastructure Bank led by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary; more funding for apprenticeships and skills training; a big injection of public investment in R&D; and the launch of the UK-wide Help to Grow scheme.
I want to see us go further by looking at innovative supply-side solutions to problems, particularly in delivering the homes people need, in ensuring people have access to the services they need and in carefully managing the risk of inflationary spirals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) alluded to, this is all about creating the conditions for private sector growth. In his Mais lecture earlier this year, the Chancellor set out his plans to create the conditions for that growth by supporting a culture of enterprise through a focus on capital, people and ideas, and the Government have already taken steps to encourage business investment, including through the super-deduction.
On expenditure incurred between 1 April 2021 and the end of March 2023, companies have the right to claim 130% capital allowances on qualifying plant and machinery investments, allowing them to cut their tax bill by up to 25p in every £1 they invest, making our capital allowances regime one of the most competitive anywhere in the world.
The power of our private sector is also seen in our tech industry, in which there was more than £27 billion of investment in 2021. The UK sits alongside the United States and China as one of only three countries in the world to have produced more than 100 tech unicorns. The UK boasts a thriving start-up scene, with a new tech business launching every half an hour throughout 2020.
Kevin Hollinrake
I declare my interest on this point.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury talks about investment in private sector businesses. Equity investment is vital. The enterprise investment scheme and the seed enterprise investment scheme are fundamental to private sector investment in businesses, and they are due to expire in 2025. Will he announce from the Dispatch Box today that the schemes will be extended?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend tempts me. In all seriousness, we are acutely aware of this issue. Indeed, I have had meetings on it this week, and the Economic Secretary is looking at it very closely. We want to make sure we have the right investment climate to support the kind of activity to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) alludes.
As the Prime Minister told the House last week, we need the legislative firepower to fix the underlying problems in our energy supply, housing, infrastructure and skills, which are driving up costs for families across the country. The Queen’s Speech will help us to grow the economy, which is the sustainable way to deal with our cost of living challenges, and will ensure that we deliver on the people’s priorities. The Bills it outlined will do so in many different ways.
Every corner of the country can contribute to, and enjoy, economic growth, which is why we created the UK Infrastructure Bank, the establishment of which will be completed by the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill. The bank will be explicitly tasked with supporting regional and local economic growth and helping to tackle climate change as it goes. With £22 billion of capacity, it will be able to support infrastructure investment and level up the whole United Kingdom, in turn boosting private sector confidence and unlocking a further £18 billion of private investment.
The energy security Bill will build on the success of the COP26 summit in Glasgow, reduce our exposure to volatile global gas markets, and deliver a managed transition to cheaper, cleaner and more secure energy, all while we continue to help with energy costs right now, through a £9 billion package, an increase to the warm home discount and the £1 billion household support fund.
I have already alluded to the importance of skills. We have achieved plenty on that already, but we are far from done. Everyone, everywhere should be encouraged to fulfil their potential. The higher education Bill will help to ensure that our post-18 education system promotes real social mobility, putting students on to pathways along which they can excel. It will give them the skills they need to meet their aspirations, in turn helping to grow the economy.
Meanwhile, a bonanza of Brexit Bills, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency, mean that we will continue to seize the benefits of our departure from the European Union, and create a regulatory environment that encourages prosperity, business innovation and entrepreneurship. Regulations on businesses will be repealed and reformed and it will be made easier to amend law inherited from the European Union.
I alluded earlier to the Procurement Bill, which will make public sector procurement simpler, providing opportunities to small businesses that for too long have been out of their reach. New procedures will improve transparency and accountability and allow new suppliers to the market to bid for future contracts.
Another benefit to Brexit is the freedom with which we can now negotiate entirely new trade arrangements with partners around the world. The Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill will enable the implementation of the United Kingdom’s first new free trade agreements since leaving the European Union, spurring economic growth through our trading relationships, creating and securing jobs across this country. Well may Opposition Front Benchers snipe, having spent years trying to prevent our exit from the EU. Conservative Members know that we have honoured our contract with the British people, which is ultimately why we are in government to deliver on those opportunities and they are in opposition.
Part of having a growing economy is of course about investors knowing that we are one of the safest and most reliable places in the world to do business. The economic crime and corporate transparency Bill will send that message out loud and clear, cracking down on illicit finance that costs the economy and the taxpayer an estimated £8.4 billion a year, and strengthening our reputation as a place where legitimate businesses can create and grow jobs.
The final Bill to which I will draw the House’s attention today is the financial services and markets Bill. The UK now has a unique opportunity to assess whether it wants to do things differently, to ensure that the financial services sector has the right rules and regulations for UK markets and to further enhance a system that is already the envy of the world. The Chancellor and the Economic Secretary have been outspoken in expressing an ambitious vision for a sector that can contribute so much to this country: more open, more innovative and more competitive. The financial services and markets Bill represents further progress towards making that vision a reality, establishing a coherent, agile and internationally respected approach to financial services regulation that is specifically designed for the UK, removing red tape, promoting investment and giving our financial services regulators new objectives to ensure a greater focus on growth and international competitiveness.
That is a full and ambitious agenda, supporting and encouraging economic growth in many mutually reinforcing ways across the entire country. We continue to keep the wider situation under review, including the impact of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. But, crucially, our focus is on the best solution of all: a growing economy supporting high-wage, high-skilled jobs.
The Prime Minister told the House last week that our ambition is to
“build the foundations for decades of prosperity, uniting and levelling up across the country”.—[Official Report, 10 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 17.]
That is what the public rightly expect and that is where our collective efforts will be focused in this parliamentary Session.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind Members that it is very important that those wishing to speak in the debate get here for the opening contributions from the Front Benchers, make sure that they get back in good time for the closing speeches—it is essential and courteous to be here—and stay in the Chamber for most of the debate, because it is important to hear what other people have to say. After I call the SNP spokesperson, I will be going to the Back Benchers. I do not want to put a time limit on, but I would advise that speeches of about seven minutes would be helpful to make sure that everybody makes an equal contribution. I call SNP spokesperson Alison Thewliss.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Today is National Numeracy Day and there will be a lot of figures flying about this afternoon. It often makes me think that it would be helpful in this place if we were allowed to do as they do in the US Senate and have great big charts we can point at to make these debates easier for people to follow. But the Bank of England’s predictions on GDP growth, thankfully for the Government, are quite easy to illustrate—they are pretty much a flat line. The cost of living crisis and Brexit continue to hold back growth, and opportunities for more sustainable, inclusive growth, conscious of our climate obligations presented at the COP26 summit in my constituency last year, are being squandered. It is not so much a Union dividend as a stagnant economy. It does not have to be this way.
We need to recognise that the endless pursuit of GDP growth at any cost destroys communities and the planet. Growth should be inclusive and should prioritise policies that tackle inequalities, contribute to net zero and provide high-quality jobs. Investing in green technologies, in insulating and retrofitting homes, and in improving public transport would all be a good start, but no Bills in the Queen’s Speech get close to that ambition. In Scotland, the SNP has put wellbeing at the heart of our economic strategy. It is through wellbeing and fair work that we can deliver higher rates of employment and wage growth, reduce poverty, and improve outcomes for disadvantaged families and communities.
I was proud to serve on the Scottish Government’s Social Justice and Fairness Commission, which, prior to the pandemic, set out some of the direction of travel. Last week, the Scottish Government announced the establishment of a new centre of expertise in equality and human rights, which will see the Scottish Government working with leading experts to address economic inequality, building on the principle that a fairer economy is a stronger economy.
Post pandemic, we are presented with a clear choice over whether to lead or to lag behind other successful and more equal economies while we recover from covid, deliver net zero, tackle structural inequalities and grow the economy. The UK Tory Government have chosen to ignore the problems and to lag. The UK economy is now forecast to be the worst-performing G7 economy next year. This week, we had more of the Chancellor’s sleight of hand on Twitter, in using a scale on a graph that makes less than 1% in GDP growth look good. It is not that good, so the Government should stop pretending that it is, and it is in no small part a consequence of their policy choices.
There has been no clear economic strategy from the UK Tory Government, yet the policy choice that looms over all things, from the Northern Ireland protocol disputes to manufacturing and labour supply, is Brexit. There is no doubt that global forces are posing huge challenges now, but these have been compounded by Brexit, the daftest of all economic policies. By December 2021, leaving the single market and customs union had reduced UK goods trade by 14.9%. Analysis by the Centre for European Reform shows that UK exports have taken a larger hit than imports. Pushing through that Brexit cliff edge in the middle of a pandemic, and masking the economic damage regardless of the economic cost, is an act of great economic self-sabotage. GDP growth in the UK is only about half the EU average since the Brexit referendum.
Alison Thewliss
I will certainly give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he can explain why there is a benefit of Brexit when we see only economic harm.
Chris Grayling
I ask the hon. Lady to correct the record. If she looks at the website of the Office for National Statistics, she will see that the opposite of what she is saying is the case. In fact, UK imports from the European Union have fallen, whereas UK exports to the EU have recovered. It is not clear why that is, but that is what the ONS says and I hope she will go away, read that website and correct the record.
Alison Thewliss
That goes to my point that we can make all kinds of statistics show all kinds of things. But what we hear from food producers in Scotland is that it is very difficult for them to get their high-quality exports to the European markets, and that is a direct choice with Brexit. We have also seen it become easier for EU goods to get into the country and more difficult for UK goods to get out—these mad policies have caused all kinds of difficulties.
We face weak growth in 2023 in comparison with not just the G7, but most of the world, as well as higher inflation by far than anywhere in the eurozone. Figures today that put inflation at 9% are shocking, and it is only May. Some of that inflation rate has come about via the Government’s choice—and it was a choice—to increase VAT back to 20%. Given the rampant energy costs, it is certain that more price rises are yet to come.
Last week, Adam Posen, the president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told the Treasury Committee that in his view, a
“substantial majority of the inflation differential for the UK over the euro area is due to Brexit”.
That is a choice by this Government that is making things harder for people in these islands. It is an act of self-harm supported not only by the Tory idealogues, of course, but now by the Labour Front-Bench team, who apparently want to make Brexit work, against all good reason and good evidence, and against the 62% of people in Scotland who voted to remain in the EU. Earlier in the week, when I asked Ministers about the benefits of Brexit, they pointed out freeports in Teesside, which will not have huge benefits for my constituents, that is for certain.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I do not want to labour the point, but when it comes to freedom of movement, if people want to make Brexit work, perhaps the easiest way is to make the Northern Ireland protocol cover the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Alison Thewliss
My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion because, of course, Northern Ireland has benefited from that.
Investment in our communities has taken a direct hit from the loss of European structural funds. The UK Government’s shared prosperity fund will see Scotland allocated £32 million in 2022, £55 million in 2023 and £125 million in 2024—but even that third year of funding will deliver less than Scotland received before Brexit.
Alison Thewliss
If the hon. Member would like to explain to me why Scotland deserves less now than it had before Brexit, I will take his intervention.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Would the hon. Lady like to explain to the House how much harder it would be for business and what it would do to living standards in Scotland if Scotland followed the SNP’s suggestion and left the United Kingdom, with a border across the middle of Great Britain?
Alison Thewliss
There are multiple benefits to Scotland being independent, and the greatest one would certainly be not having to live with policy choices made by this Government, for whom none of our people voted.
The Scottish Government have calculated that £162 million per year would be needed to replace the European regional development fund and European social fund, and that increases to £183 million per year when LEADER funding and the EU territorial co-operation programmes are added in. That means there is a significant shortfall for organisations and projects that are already operating with significant challenges from the pandemic and the cost of living crisis. Of course, many such organisations, which fund projects such as bridges and green infrastructure, and retrain those who have lost their job or are far from the labour market, were contributing significantly to economic growth. Without the money to replace them, the areas and people involved will struggle to make progress, just as Bloomberg suggests is already happening with the flawed Tory levelling-up fund.
Before the pandemic, investment was stagnant because of the drawn-out uncertainty of Brexit and an unnecessary commitment to leaving the customs union and the single market. The harm to the economy and to people’s pockets could have been lessened had different choices been made. There has been a lot of talk about the Northern Ireland protocol, but the reality is that Manufacturing Northern Ireland has found that the issue is largely with GB suppliers that are unwilling to send to Northern Ireland, while EU supply chains have recovered. There has been a 28% increase in sales with the EU and manufacturing jobs in Northern Ireland are now growing four times faster than the UK average.
The Bills mentioned in the Queen’s Speech do nothing to redress the damage caused by Brexit. James Withers from Scotland Food & Drink said:
“Had the war in Ukraine not happened, we were already facing energy bills rising, a world waking up from a pandemic…Brexit for sure has made nothing better, but has made a number of things a lot worse.”
Mr Withers also pointed to the labour market being in disarray. This UK Tory Government’s obsession with limiting immigration is causing untold harm to our growth prospects. Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics noted that around half a million people have left the labour market completely since start of the pandemic, and we do not know whether they will come back. Meanwhile, vacancies are running at a record high of 1.295 million. Who will fill these jobs? The Government have absolutely no answer to that. All these vacancies are already having an impact: surveys by the British Chambers of Commerce have found that companies cannot fulfil orders because of a lack of staff, as well as soaring material costs. Perpetuating the hostile environment is bad economics as well as morally dubious politics. It is not a recipe for growth: it is a recipe for self-inflicted economic catastrophe.
Precious little in the Queen’s Speech will help with the spiralling cost of living crisis and soaring energy prices. The April 2022 price cap was already 75% higher than one year ago. Miatta Fahnbulleh of the New Economics Foundation said that
“the government said its priority was…to help people with the cost of living crisis…Yet we had 38 bills that will barely have an impact on that agenda.”
Whether people are in work or out of work, the money in their pockets is being eroded every single day by inflation. The UK Tory Government could choose to put money into people’s pockets. They could introduce an emergency Budget to make sure that the least well-off—those who are really struggling, those who need support with their energy bills to get by—are supported. The SNP Government have uplifted the benefits in their control by 6%; there, again, the UK Tory Government lag behind. People are seeing the money that they receive eroded every single day.
The UK Government should be converting the £200 heat now, pay later loan into a grant. As the chief executive of ScottishPower has said, they should be increasing that grant substantially—he says to £1,000—to help people with their energy bills. Such is the magnitude of the increase in people’s costs. The UK Government should scrap the regressive national insurance tax hike, which is a tax on jobs at the worst possible time; reverse the £1,040 cut to universal credit; and support those on legacy benefits, who have seen very little from this Government. They should also introduce a real living wage—a living wage for all that people can actually live on—rather than their pretendy living wage, which is not even available to all ages, with age discrimination baked in. They should also look at removing VAT on energy bills, which is a significant cost.
The Government have been raking it in: additional money that they did not expect has come in through the taxation system, as set out in the spring statement, and that will increase every day as VAT receipts come in and inflation soars.
As a proportion of income, the rise in the cost of living for poorer families is nine times larger than it is for the richest 5%. Institute for Fiscal Studies figures suggest that although inflation today is at 9%, for the least well-off it is just shy of 11%. The impact of such inflation on people can sound a bit abstract when we talk about percentages here and there, but the Child Poverty Action Group has calculated that with inflation running at 9%, the value of someone’s universal credit falls by £790 per year. That is a lot of money to the people who receive that benefit and the Government should be doing more about it.
All the way through the supply chain—from those growing crops and those processing and transporting food, to those stacking it on the shelves, to those cooking their tea and putting it on the table—costs are increasing. Businesses are being pushed to the very limits to absorb the costs and it cannot continue for much longer.
When I watch Treasury Ministers in this place, it is hard for me to hide my frustration, because they have all the levers that my colleagues in Holyrood do not have, yet not one iota of the ambition or imagination. There is so much that they could do to invest in people and communities, to work towards the promise of COP26 and to build a fairer, more just and more equal society—to grow, but in a way that leaves no one behind. We cannot rely on the Conservatives or Labour—both are now Brexiteer parties—because Scotland wants to take its place in the world. We want to be part of something and to be connected, rather than to rely on the tiny ambitions of this Government. People in Scotland are yearning for a Government with the powers to do better by their people; I hope they will soon get the chance to vote for that in an independence referendum.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss).
I rise to support many of the Bills in the Queen’s Speech. In particular, I wish to support the contention that slow growth is the long-term bane of the British economy, going back many decades, so I wholeheartedly welcome the fact that the Chancellor has made raising productivity, and therefore growth, his main task. The urgency of the task is only amplified by the scary inflation that we are currently experiencing. He is absolutely right to emphasise that as the central purpose of his chancellorship. In his excellent opening speech, the Chief Secretary made the point that there are three pillars to the Chancellor’s approach. I was going to mention five; I hope the number having gone up so quickly is not another sign of rapidly rising inflation.
On top of the pillars that the Chief Secretary mentioned, I would add and commend the idea, which was in the Queen’s Speech, of spreading economic activity and opportunity all across the country. If all the UK was as productive as London and the south-east, UK GDP would be boosted by some £180 billion—as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) mentioned, many figures flying around today, but that is a very significant and simple one. We would all—all over the country—be significantly richer if we could make the less productive parts of the country as productive as the most productive parts. Therefore, those bits of the levelling-up Bill that are about spreading activity and opportunity are central to the success of our economic policy over the next couple of years. We may wish to return to the planning parts of that Bill in a later debate.
Skills, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned, are essential, so I very much welcome the Schools Bill. School education is about much more than preparing for economic life, but consistently higher standards in our schools will give us a more productive workforce, and therefore greater wealth and, in the end, more leisure time. It is one of the bases on which we need to build not just a healthy society, but a healthy economy.
Science and technology, which my right hon. Friend did not mention, is the other element that I would add. Again, successive Governments, going back more than half a century—as far back as Harold Wilson—have emphasised the need to harness science more effectively to give us a long-term advantage in a competitive world. One thing we have learned over those many decades is that it needs to be done in a focused way. In that regard, the genetic technology Bill is particularly welcome. It covers one specific, but hugely important, area in which we ought to have an international advantage and that we should wish to exploit.
My right hon. Friend mentioned infrastructure. In a week in which we have seen Crossrail operating, we should all celebrate the fact that we can, even if slightly belatedly, build grands projets in this country. I hope that the transport Bill, when we see the details of it, will encourage not just Government activity but innovation, which is hugely important and the fifth point that my right hon. Friend mentioned. Innovation is the most difficult thing to legislate for. It requires an attitude of mind, a culture, that grows from a tax system that encourages risk taking, an education system that provides the necessary skills, and the opportunities for people to make a difference, particularly in their own area.
Nadia Whittome
On that point, does the right hon. Member agree that climate education in schools—from primary through to secondary and vocational courses—is essential if we are to meet our legally binding targets of net zero by 2050?
Damian Green
I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady spends a lot of time visiting schools in her constituency. I am struck not only by the standard of teaching in that area, but by the enthusiasm and engagement of young people on that issue, which is very important.
I am afraid, however, that the Government’s legislative proposals threaten to take us in the wrong direction in another innovative sector in which Britain is world class: the creative industries. Any Government would want to support, encourage, and, above all, listen to those industries when considering the future, but in that regard I have reservations about the media Bill. The Government’s own White Paper on broadcasting, “Up Next”, which was published last month, says:
“The UK’s creative economy is a global success story, and our public service broadcasters (PSBs) are the beating heart of that success. They produce great British content loved across the UK and the world over. The government wants it to stay that way.”
Good, so do I, and so do millions of people who value the BBC, Channel 4, as well as ITV and Channel 5; they all do a good job. What worries me, looking at the White Paper and the announcements made, is that the Government’s warm words are not matched by sympathetic actions. Let us take Channel 4 first. The Government had a consultation. There was an overwhelming desire to keep the ownership situation as it is, and that was ignored. In ignoring the consultation, the Government have argued that Channel 4 needs borrowing powers so that, in the end, it does not have to rely for borrowing on the state. Channel 4 has come up with a suggestion for a joint venture that would enable it to stay with its current ownership regime, but still access private capital. That was ignored. Instead, the Government insist on carrying on with privatisation.
If we care about a successful sector—the creative sector is successful and the many small businesses that make programmes for Channel 4 are particularly successful—we should listen to it when it tells us how best to strengthen it for the future. As a Conservative, I find it extraordinary that we have a Conservative Government who are saying, “The gentleman from Whitehall knows best” and that they are deciding how best to run this part of the sector, ignoring the small businesses that make it up. I thought that listening to small business was a core Conservative aim, but we seem not to be doing so.
Let us go from the abstract to the concrete. If this legislation goes through, which I hope it does not, Channel 4 could be bought by a big US player, in which case let us look in five years’ time at how much quirky, different, and innovative UK-based content is being made for Channel 4, particularly as it happens outside London and the south-east, outside the traditional broadcasting areas. It is also possible that ITV will buy it, which will mean a reduction in competition in the TV advertising market. Again, speaking as a Conservative, I thought that competition was one thing that we believed in and wanted to encourage.
Beyond Channel 4, the Government plan to move onto the BBC. They are rightly consulting on the future funding of this hugely important national institution, but it is slightly difficult to take a consultation seriously when, at the outset, the Secretary of State has announced her conclusion, which is that the licence fee has had its day. It is an arguable position, but it is unarguable that it makes the whole consultation look like a sham. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which I am a member, looked at this issue last year and, broadly speaking, concluded that for all the disadvantages that it has—we know what they are—the licence fee was the least bad option for the coming years. Let us have a proper debate on this hugely important and complex issue, and not a sham consultation where the verdict has been given before the evidence has been considered. Again, let us listen to the voices of those who have made our creative sectors such a big economic contributor to the country and something to be really proud of in modern Britain.
In conclusion, there is very much that I welcome in the Queen’s Speech, but I hope the Government will listen on some issues, because, otherwise, there is a danger of stifling growth in one of our best economic sectors. Britain needs a thriving creative sector and the creative industries need a Government who will support and nurture them by creating a regulatory climate in which they can thrive, creating jobs and wealth, and also experiences and memories that the British people will share with each other. I am sure that this House will help the Government achieve that end.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
This morning, the Foreign Secretary said:
“We are in a very, very difficult economic situation”.
We all recognise that that is true. Although there are some things that no Government can control, I encourage Ministers to reflect a little more on some of the difficulties that they have brought upon themselves and British business.
In his speech, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury somehow neglected to mention the fact that our goods trade with the European Union since January 2021 has had to contend with red tape, bureaucracy and costs, including transport costs, which the Government have dumped on British business via the deal that they concluded. We know that we have small and medium-sized companies that are struggling to export to the EU. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) talked about the importance of the cultural sector, but we know that musicians and performing artists face visa applications and customs declarations, which they find incompatible with trying to tour in Europe.
We know that farmers are suffering from a shortage of labour. On Monday, when I was in Kent—I am co-convenor of the UK Trade and Business Commission—I talked to a fruit farmer. He said that, last year, he could not pick 8% of his crop. What has he done this year? He is reducing the amount that he plants. What does that do for British food security? It has benefits for other countries that are growing more, but it is making it harder for British farmers to grow more here.
While businesses are having to cope with all that cost, the Government have for the fourth time postponed checks on EU businesses exporting into the United Kingdom, so they face less of the checks and costs that the Government have just dumped on to British businesses. The Office for Budget Responsibility, as Members will know, says that the UK has,
“missed out on much of the recovery in global trade”.
According to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the number of UK businesses exporting goods to the EU fell by an astonishing 33% last year compared with the year before. That is mainly small businesses that have said, “We can’t be bothered with all of this. We’re giving up exporting.” How does that help economic recovery?
Kevin Hollinrake
The right hon. Gentleman is making a strong point, and I am not a remoaner in any shape or form, but of the Bank of England’s evidence to the Treasury Committee this week, the evidence from the Governor of the Bank of England, his written evidence or the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee meetings on the labour shortages the UK faces, not a single one mentioned Brexit. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that is? Is it not the case that we must confront the brutal facts if we are going to solve some of these problems?
Hilary Benn
I can only report what I was told by the farmer on Monday. He has relied over the years on workers who have come from eastern Europe, and he says, “They’re just not coming in the same numbers, and that’s why I can’t pick my crops.” That is the point I am making.
Harriett Baldwin
The right hon. Gentleman had the pleasure, as I did, of having lunch with some senators who were visiting here from France. I believe he was at the very conversation where they said how difficult it was for them too to find seasonal agricultural workers, because of the disruption caused by the pandemic.
Hilary Benn
Undoubtedly, disentangling the impact of the pandemic and other factors is continuing work; the Office for National Statistics makes that point when it publishes the statistics. However, there is no doubt at all that the change in the visa regime being operated by the Home Office now is having an impact on British farmers, and that was the point I was trying to make. I long for the day when these things—
Matt Rodda
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point. I have been given the same feedback by small businesses. Does he agree that there is also a serious connection between the rising cost of food and the lack of labour for British farms, and that that particular area could be driving inflation?
Hilary Benn
There is no doubt that if we put more costs, bureaucracy, red tape and increased transport costs on businesses, prices will increase. That is one of the ways businesses cope. Those things need to be sorted out but, as long as there is no trust between the European Union and the United Kingdom, it is frankly not going to happen.
The principal cause of that distrust is the stand-off over the Northern Ireland protocol, which is the other issue I want to raise. We have two problems. One is that the Northern Ireland Government is not functioning and the second is that the Northern Ireland protocol is not working. The Good Friday agreement and the power-sharing and peace it has brought cannot be jeopardised by trade problems caused by the protocol.
It is extremely tempting to dwell on the miserable history of how we got here—how the Prime Minister moved from promising that he would never put a border in the Irish sea to promptly doing so when he became the occupant of No. 10, and then to describing it as “a great deal” for Northern Ireland—but, in all honesty, the Prime Minister’s failings and inconsistencies are not a reason to inflict damage on Northern Ireland or on the British economy when so many people are struggling.
We all knew that leaving the European Union would create difficulties over Ireland. The only thing everyone agreed on—practically the only thing—was that there could be no return to a hard border. That is why the most important part of the protocol talked about goods at risk, and this is at the heart of the debate: goods at risk, having entered Northern Ireland, of going into the European Union, as opposed to goods that are going to stay in Northern Ireland. That was never defined, and the joint committee was given the task of dealing with it.
We have a stand-off at the moment. In one way, that stand-off could just be extended and extended and the Government could continue to prolong the grace periods—unlawfully, as per the protocol—with the EU starting legal action and staying it while they try to negotiate. That is one way of dealing with it. In fairness, the EU moved on medicines, and I praise Maroš Šefčovič for that. He changed EU law to allow NHS patients in Northern Ireland to get NHS medicines, which is pretty obvious really.
I said to Mr Šefčovič on Thursday, when he appeared before the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, “Thanks for doing that, but if you can move on that, can you not move on other things as well?” We all know the list of remaining problem areas: seed potatoes, parcels, guide dogs, supermarket deliveries to shops, organic food and divergence on the use of titanium dioxide, an ingredient in cakes and ice cream that I was not previously aware of. The EU proposals would provide more checks and problems than the current stand-off, and it is important to recognise that.
I say to the Government, as I said to the Foreign Secretary yesterday, that threatening to disapply the protocol will not work. In the end, it will result in retaliation. If retaliation results in further obstacles to trade or, heaven forbid, a trade war, that will make the cost of living crisis even worse. We have a real war in Europe going on; we do not need a trade war with our biggest trading partner.
At the same time, the EU needs to understand that it has to move to help to bring this crisis to an end. If one takes those supermarkets that sell only to shops in Northern Ireland, what exactly is the risk to the integrity of the single market from a sandwich, a cake or a chicken—I speak as a vegetarian—that is bought in a supermarket in Strabane or Belfast? Can anyone point, in the 16 months the grace period has operated, to a single example where the integrity of the single market has been damaged? I am not aware of any. There is a problem with divergence, but I hope that a way of mutually recognising each other’s food production standards arrangements can come.
In conclusion, this crisis arises from a practical problem and it requires a practical solution. That is what politics is meant to deliver. That is our job. We need patient diplomacy and negotiation that takes as its starting point the purpose of the rules—they are there for a purpose—rather than the rules themselves and applies that to the unique and particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. Could we have less squabbling and more cool heads? Could we have less escalation and more conciliation? My message to both sides in the partnership council is a simple one: “You’ve got the power to deal with this. Sort it out.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Just a gentle reminder that my guidance was seven minutes. I call Chris Grayling.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will endeavour to fulfil that.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) is right about conciliation, but it is noticeable that the European Union is preventing the United Kingdom from participating in Horizon Europe, while allowing the Israelis to do so. That does not feel to me like an awful lot of good will from their side, and that is to be regretted.
I rise to support the Queen’s Speech. As we focus on economic growth, these are extraordinary and difficult times for our economy. We have had in this country to deal with an unprecedented series of problems, and so have our Ministers—something the Opposition often forget as they throw brickbats at them.
We now know from the World Health Organisation that the Government and the country handled the tragic circumstances of the pandemic pretty well. Many countries suffered and so did we, but we were far from being the bad performer that has been suggested. We also forget the continued impact of the pandemic in China, where there are severe lockdowns still. That is causing an economic ripple effect that contributes to the inflation problems we face. The sad reality is that when oil prices, food prices and the cost of household energy soar, those things are outside the control of any individual Government and there are few Governments that can wave a wand and solve them.
I am pretty supportive of much of what this Government have done and how they have gone about dealing with the range of issues that have arisen, but I make one simple point to the Minister and his colleagues: we cannot achieve growth by over-taxing our economy. The decisions that have been taken on tax have been taken, but the direction of travel needs to change, and soon.
We also need to step up our incentivisation of investment. If we are to deal with the huge energy challenges this country faces, we must do more. That means continuing our dramatic progress on wind and solar power; it means, I suspect, looking again at tidal energy and it means developing hydrogen. It must be said that we would be in a much more difficult position if this Government and the coalition Government before them had not placed such emphasis on renewables. That was clearly the right thing to do. However, we also need more domestic production of gas. There are those who say we should stop all fossil fuel projects now. I take completely the opposite view.
As the world rightly moves away from coal, something needs to take its place. Countries that have been dependent on coal are not suddenly going to make a complete switch to renewables or zero-emission nuclear power stations overnight, so gas, which is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, must be a short-term priority for us. Indeed, it is the move away from coal in parts of Asia that started the gas price surge in the first place. It is pretty clear that the world does not at the moment have enough gas for the transition to net zero, particularly as we deal with the consequences of the war in Ukraine, so we will see prices continue to remain high unless we deal with supply issues.
That is why it makes absolute sense—the Government are right to be supporting this—to have additional extraction of gas from the North sea. Frankly, we would be in dereliction of our duty if we did not look again at the potential to use shale gas to help us through. To those who say, “No more UK production”, I just say this: the emissions from a tanker of gas from Qatar are roughly twice those of a similar consignment from the North sea. I want to cut emissions. I also believe that we need a steady transition to net zero by 2050—but it is a transition. Burning fuel that generates twice the emissions makes no sense. Gas is a key part of our transition to net zero, and the more it can be produced in the UK, the lower our emissions will be. We also need to move rapidly on nuclear, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to that as well. We cannot achieve net zero without it.
Let me turn to the environment and conservation. If I have a disappointment in this Queen’s Speech, it is that the legislation on conservation I was hoping for has slipped beyond this Session. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency, who is in his place will make sure that it comes back in the next Session. We urgently need to take forward the progress we have made but also to put in place a modernised framework for wildlife protection in this country. For example, it makes no sense to have expansive protections in place for newts, which are numerous here, but not for creatures such as the hedgehog that have declined so much. I have pushed for the hedgehog to have greater legal protection and I look forward to this happening in the next Session, at least. But there are steps that can be taken now. When the levelling-up Bill comes before the House, I will table an amendment, if the Government have not already acted, to require a full wildlife survey of every development site, and if vulnerable species are found, there should be a legal duty to relocate them to an appropriate habitat elsewhere. No more should we tolerate developers cutting down all the trees on the site and clearing all the foliage, turning it into a wasteland, before they have even applied for, let alone secured, planning consent. We need growth, and we need more houses, but a cavalier approach to local wildlife cannot be the consequence.
In this Session I will continue to push Ministers to go further and faster on bottom trawling in marine protected areas. We have made a start in the first few areas, but there is much further to go. This is a really important of protecting our ecology. Having stronger environmental protections in our seas is one of the benefits that is deliverable now that we have left the European Union. It would not have been possible while we were still EU members.
Turning to broader issues on conservation, I applaud Ministers for the work they are doing internationally, and particularly what Lord Goldsmith is doing to support the Congo Basin. The leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on COP26 and its aftermath has been exemplary. One of the key moments of the coming Session will be the negotiations at the Convention on Biological Diversity summit this year. I want the UK to play a key role in delivering what is needed—a renewed international drive on species protection and habitat restoration. WWF estimates that the amount of degraded land internationally where deforestation followed by over-farming has taken place is the size of South America. If we are going to tackle climate change, protect endangered species and deal with a global food shortage, we need to start recovering this land, restoring it for wildlife in some areas or properly managed agriculture in others, with a particular focus on creating sustainable livelihoods for the people in those areas. Our Ministers need to make sure that we set a path towards those goals as we finish our year of COP presidency and take part in the CBD discussions.
There is a lot to do in terms of a growing economy, the move towards net zero, and doing our bit internationally to secure a proper future for all our environments. I am glad to support a Government who, in my view, have made a good start, but there is still a lot to do.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
This is a Queen’s Speech that provides mediocre answers to the wrong questions. The Government acknowledge that there is a cost of living crisis, but they do not want to do anything about it. They acknowledge that there is a housing crisis, but they are not willing to control rent so that people can afford to live in their homes. They acknowledge that energy is expensive. But do they want to talk about meaningful price caps? Do they want to talk about retrofitting or insulation? Did they vote in favour of a windfall tax to lower bills when they had the opportunity yesterday? No, no and no.
This is a Government who tell us they want action on the climate crisis, and then, when a protest movement comes along to demand just that, introduce legislation to have them sent to jail. They want to invest, they tell us, in the future. But the Conservatives have been in power for 12 years and they have cut the public sector to shreds. Wages will be lower in 2025 than they were in 2008, when I was 12 years old. Since they came to power, the number of people on zero-hours contracts has risen more than fivefold. All of this happened on their watch—and are they going to reverse it? No.
In 2010, the Trussell Trust handed out 48,000 food parcels. Last year, it handed out 2.1 million. Meanwhile, Britain gained a record number of billionaires, between them owning £597 billion—about triple the annual operating budget of the NHS. That is the dynamism of the market for you—the kind of dynamism that makes an elderly lady sit on the bus all day to keep warm because she cannot afford to heat her home. We need a publicly owned energy system that delivers cheap, green energy; an above-inflation rise in the minimum wage; at least the restoration of the £20 universal credit, but really a reversal of all the benefit cuts since 2010; and rent controls.
Finally, I would like to address the disgrace of explicitly excluding trans people from the so-called ban on conversion therapy. Once again, the Government acknowledge that there is a problem, but will they extend the protection of the law to those who need it most—young trans people, half of whom have attempted suicide by the time they reach the age of 26? No. So transphobic parents will still be able to hire someone to psychologically abuse their child in an attempt to stop them being trans, and this practice will still be perfectly legal. What kind of message does that send to young trans people fighting to survive? We need a Government who are on the right side of history, but instead we have a Government of pound-shop authoritarians made on the playing fields of Eton and in the Daily Mail’s wildest dreams. They know there is a problem, but what they cannot do is recognise the truth—that the problem is them.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is appropriate that I am following the quite passionate speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) about the conversion therapy Bill. I broadly welcome the Queen’s Speech and the Government’s legislative programme. I was always in favour of some kind of legislation about conversion therapy, but the more I have looked at the issue, the less and less happy I am that there should be such a Bill, not because I am in favour of conversion therapy, but because I cannot see that legislation is either necessary or desirable. I am ready to be proved wrong, but I can think of no coercive behaviour that it would ban that is not already illegal. This Bill will be used to stoke exactly the kind of bitter disputes about transsexuality that we need to resolve before we legislate next in this field. Again, I am happy to be proved wrong—let us see the Bill—but we could have done with some pre-legislative scrutiny of such a Bill.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Although conversion therapy and, indeed, hedgehogs are both fascinating subjects, in terms of achieving economic growth, does my hon. Friend agree that what the Government are doing on levelling-up funds and bringing investment that can act as a catalyst for further investment in great small cities such as Gloucester will help to create jobs, footfall and retail—all the things that people in our country value—in order to have the opportunities to bring about that growth?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but we should recognise that these issues of conversion therapy and transsexuality are very important to certain sections of society. They need to be addressed, but we need to be sure that we address them in the right way.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I will, but I do not want to give way too often because we are not time-limited.
Geraint Davies
Some years ago, I brought forward a Bill on the regulation of psychotherapists, which recommended banning conversion therapy. There was a conference that 100 conversion therapists attended, so this is a widespread and abhorrent practice. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those who say that transsexuality should not be included seem to be those who think that people would go through the process of becoming a transwoman in order to rape another woman? There are a lot of male rapists out there. It seems to be a lot of effort for someone to have their head kicked in by other men. Transgender people should be included in the Bill.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I had not intended to make a great speech about this subject. I note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made and I wish to move on.
I welcome the forthcoming legislation to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I say to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who spoke a few moments ago, that perhaps we agree a great deal about the future of the Northern Ireland protocol. The question is whether we can make it happen unless we have some legislation coming down the track as well, because the EU has not changed its mandate.
I want to concentrate today on much more immediate challenges. Covid supply chain disruption persists in many parts of the world, notably China, and now we have Russia’s dreadful war against Ukraine, which frankly has shattered the geopolitical order that we have become used to for decades. We all used to believe in what the Germans called, “Wandel durch Handel”—the mistaken faith that nations that trade together would never go to war with each other. President Putin has smashed that confidence.
Business and Governments are reducing their exposure to dependency on all autocratic regimes. That is throwing globalisation into reverse, creating massive price increases and shortages. Poorer nations are acting to keep their food affordable for their own people. For example, India has just banned wheat exports, following Indonesia, which banned palm oil exports. We have an acute, growing and potentially far greater energy supply crisis in Europe. Europe cannot continue to rely on supply from Russia. This crisis requires a vast reorganisation of Europe’s energy supply and trading arrangements, and this massive adjustment will take years and is unprecedented. Only major food and energy producers in the world, such as Canada and the US, will avoid the worst kind of recession.
At least the United Kingdom can produce some of our own gas and oil and can continue to expand renewables, but why are we pumping our surplus gas out to Europe this warm spring to fill EU storage capacity, when we should be filling our own? The Government shut it down, and we need to reopen our gas storage capacity as quickly as possible. I fervently hope that we can achieve net zero by 2050 without excessive cost. The Government are right to see gas as the essential transition fuel, but why import gas when we can produce our own more cheaply?
Meanwhile, we must all recognise the cost of living crisis—yes, crisis. Even before today’s shock rise in CPI to 9%, the Commons Library had given me striking projections for the effect of this crisis on households. The full-year cost of just energy and food prices will rise by well over £1,000 a year for the lowest 20% of households by income and by £1,500 a year for pensioner households. A summer package to rescue the most vulnerable households is needed to avoid real financial distress and personal anguish and to support the economic demand of the most vulnerable households, or we will be creating possibly a worse recession than is already expected.
I welcome the suggestion in The Times today that the Government are considering a package. The spring statement represented peacetime thinking. Like after the unforeseen covid crisis, the Treasury must adapt to this unexpected war in Europe and accept that this new global energy and economic crisis also requires a very substantial policy response. I have to say that is far greater than the £3 billion package that the Labour party has offered us, though I do not subscribe to the rest of its fiscal profligacy.
I suggest that the £20 uplift in universal credit should immediately be restored. The abolition of VAT on domestic fuel would abolish a regressive tax that hurts the poorest households the most. We can do that now we are outside the EU. The Government should abolish the green levies on energy bills and fund them from the Exchequer, as recommended by Professor Dieter Helm. The Government should provide pensioners and poorer families with the confidence they can afford to stay warm. We should double the warm home discount and treble the winter fuel payment.
This package would cost not £3 billion, but £13.5 billion from July in this current tax year, but that is still less than the recent tax increases we have seen, and it is about 0.6% of GDP and affordable. Now or later, we should also consider relief for middle-income households. The lower 40% of households will feel severe stress from energy and food costs alone. We could start reindexing tax thresholds, or more, and that would have the advantage of incentivising work and productivity.
I have watched Governments—and Oppositions, I think we saw it today—blindsided by their own commitment to outdated thinking and policies of the past. There is no excuse for another such episode. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is right to sound cautious, but we can see what is coming, and I am confident that this Government will act as they must.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Five thousand one hundred and fifty-six people were admitted to hospital between September last year and February this year with malnutrition in England alone. That is more than in the whole of 2010. The number of people being admitted with scurvy has doubled in the past 10 years, and we are meant to be the sixth, or sometimes the fifth, wealthiest country in the world. We have inflation running at 9%, and for the poorest families it is at 10.9%, because more of their money is spent on food and on energy, where inflation is higher. They are getting a rougher deal than anybody else. That is my constituents.
The Government answer so far is £200. They call it a gift, but it is not; it is a loan. It actually puts up next year’s bills by even more. We also have the more than £1,000 cut from universal credit. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) is absolutely right: of course we should be restoring the £20 a week on universal credit, and we have to do more for pensioners who are on fixed incomes as well.
The Government have said, “Get a better paid job”—oh yes, it is easy, isn’t it, just getting a better paid job—or they have told us, “Get a different job”, or, “Get more hours.” Well, it is just not that simple, especially if someone has caring responsibilities. Incidentally, one of the cheapest deals that the Government get is free carers in the country. The Government say, “Shop more carefully for value brands.” Do Ministers honestly not understand how ordinary people do their shopping every week? That is what they have been doing for ages, and they are not deciding which brand; they are deciding whether to buy anything at all.
Drive around on a bus all day just so that you do not have to pay the electricity bill—that seemed to be the Prime Minister’s answer just before the local elections. Now his new version is to cut the civil service by 91,000. Well, I guess there will be even fewer people sorting out the Passport Office. I do not know about anybody else’s, but my office is inundated with people saying, “I’ve got to go to a funeral”, or “I’ve got to go to a wedding”, or, “I’ve got a holiday that’s been planned and I won’t get any of the money back if I don’t have my passport by next Thursday, and I put the application in more than three months ago.” I am sorry, but cutting civil servants by 91,000 does not always go well. The one that really amuses me is the Prime Minister’s latest version, which is, “Let them eat foie gras.” We are allowed to have foie gras because apparently it is not Conservative to stop people maltreating animals so as to get a more exciting diet.
I do not think this is a Gracious Speech. It is so flimsy, it barely counts as a gracious intervention, to be honest. It is so threadbare, it barely covers the Government’s dignity. It is nothing more than a letting out of air. It is a tired sigh, a long yawn, a tedious exhalation, a great big meh of a Queen’s Speech.
There is no plan, no project, no leadership, no ideas, no programme for Government in here. Some of the so-called Bills are little more than glorified clauses. Great Governments give us really significant legislative programmes—measures such as the Reform Act, the abolition of slavery Act, the NHS Act, the minimum wage Act. What do we get here? The Harbours (Seafarers’ Remuneration) Bill. Of course it is good, but in relation to P&O this is the definition of slamming the door shut after the horse has bolted. Why is there not a proper Bill that would ban fire and rehire in its totality?
There is a load of “Groundhog Day” Bills that were promised in last year’s Queen’s Speech and we are apparently meant to have completely forgotten, such as the High Speed Rail (Crewe—Manchester) Bill, which was promised last year but never happened, and the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill for 5G, which was also promised last year but never happened. I am really keen on the Bill to counter state threats, because we need to update the laws on espionage in this country, but that too was promised last year and never happened.
Chris Bryant
I will not, because I am looking forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s speech later. I am sure it will be absolutely magnificent.
There is also a mental health Bill that was promised last year and still has not come into being. A long overdue Bill is the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. I have been arguing for such a Bill for a long time. In 2018, there was an opportunity to introduce all the measures that I guess we might have by the end of this legislative Session, but Companies House still says on its website, “Companies House does not verify the accuracy of the information filed.” So when we read that Boris Johnson Ltd was dissolved on 5 January 2021, we do not know whether that is true. We might like it to be true, but we do not know whether it is. Nor, for that matter, do we know for sure that Big Boris’s Bouncing Bonanza Ltd was dissolved on 1 February 2022. It is listed on Companies House, but we do not know whether it is true.
Where is the Bill on seizing assets? It is great that we freeze assets of those who are sanctioned for their participation, involvement or engagement in Putin’s regime, but there is no provision to seize assets, which is what we really need to do and which other countries are doing.
There are all the twaddle Bills—complete and utter twaddle. My favourite is the Human Rights Bill, which either will be compliant with the European convention on human rights, in which case it is completely and utterly useless, or will not comply with the European convention, in which case it will presage the UK departing both the convention and the Council of Europe and is therefore an act of self-harm.
Then there is the Northern Ireland protocol Bill. I am really looking forward to the day when someone in the Government finds out who actually signed the Northern Ireland protocol. That is going to be a really good day. This is what I worry about: we have been preaching, quite rightly, to Vladimir Putin and President Xi about abiding by international law, yet barely a few years after we signed up to a treaty, we want to tear it up. The only person who is laughing about all this is President Putin.
We have the Bill to privatise Channel 4, coming from a Culture Secretary who did not know that Channel 4 does not receive public funds, who did not know that Channel 5 has always been a private body, and who told the Salvation Army magazine The War Cry,
“I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be... I am just a conduit for God”.
I have to say I worry about people like that bringing in legislation.
I do not think that this Queen’s Speech addresses any of the problems of my constituents. They are choosing between heating and eating, they worry about whether they will be able to pay the rent, they worry about their family—and we still have not addressed any of the issues in the NHS. I had cancer three years ago, and I was told that I probably had less than a year to live. I know how important early diagnosis is. At the beginning of covid, we had a 4.4 million backlog of people waiting for surgery; we now have a 6.1 million backlog, and still I see no answer to how they can get the treatment they need to save their lives. That is why I say this is a meh.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It was interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Although I will not be joining him in the Lobby this evening to vote down the entirety of the Queen’s Speech, including the economic crime and corporate transparency Bill, which is what he is choosing to do, I will say that he made his points forcefully and well. However, I endorse the Chief Secretary’s comments when he ran through the range of important Bills that are included in the Queen’s Speech.
We were all shocked and taken aback today by the headline rate of inflation reaching 9%. It is a sobering moment, which many hon. Members have noted, so I start by saying that I think our Chancellor has been an unlucky Chancellor. He has had to face a pandemic, he has had to face war, and now, due to the consequences of that evil war, he has to face the inflation that is harming everyone in the United Kingdom in their pocket. None the less, I believe I am right in saying that my constituents feel very lucky that they have had this Chancellor throughout these difficult challenges, because he was so quick to provide help during the pandemic. The furlough scheme, the small business income support scheme and the culture recovery fund, to name just three, were gratefully received by constituents during the pandemic, and it is thanks to his plan for jobs that yesterday we saw the foundation of what we all want to achieve through economic growth: quite remarkably low unemployment in this country—the lowest since 1974.
There were other remarkable things in yesterday’s jobs announcements, such as a record high number of vacancies. I think I am right in saying that it is the first time the number of vacancies has exceeded the number of jobseekers in this country. The plan for jobs has worked well, as has the help the Chancellor gave throughout the pandemic, so today, as we face this high inflation rate, we are in a position to say that we have a strong job market.
It is also worth noting that this month marks the 25th anniversary of the independence of the Bank of England. I will strike a consensual note by saying that that was a really good policy decision. We must all reiterate the importance not only of the Bank of England’s independence, but of its achieving the 2% inflation mandate. It is incredibly important to our constituents that we have low inflation to form the foundation for achieving economic growth.
It might surprise Opposition Members to hear this, but I think a windfall tax—
Harriett Baldwin
Well, I think a windfall tax that helps the lowest-income households is the right approach, and that is the approach that the Government are already following. There is already a windfall tax on the oil and gas sector: whereas most corporations in this country pay 19% corporation tax, those in the oil and gas sector pay 30% corporation tax and 10% windfall tax on top of that. There has been a windfall to the Chancellor from the price of oil and gas having risen so much, and he has rightly spent that windfall on people in the lowest-income households. Just this week, people in council tax bands A to D in my constituency will receive a £150 cash grant in their bank accounts. In a couple of months’ time, in July, there will be a hike in the national insurance threshold that will put a further £330 a year into the pockets of those who pay national insurance. We have also heard about the £200 to smooth the impact on household bills.
I would urge every pensioner in this country on a low income to check whether they are entitled to pension credit. There are 850,000 pensioners in this country who are not claiming the pension credit they are entitled to. Can we all agree that we should encourage our constituents to claim that? It not only gives them extra cash, but means they get other benefits. There is the household support fund, which has been doubled to £1 billion. I would direct any of my constituents struggling with bills who reach out to me to ask about that fund. There is also the warm home discount, which has been increased and its eligibility has been widened. These measures are important and targeted at the lowest-income households, unlike a 5% across-the-board cut in VAT on fuel bills that would most benefit those who live in the biggest houses.
In conclusion, it does not matter how much bad luck the world has thrown at us—I think the Chancellor has been unlucky—because by doing the right thing, we can make the luck that will be a strong foundation for achieving economic growth.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak in this Queen’s Speech debate, just as it was a pleasure to see Her Majesty yesterday at the opening of the Elizabeth line, our new railway line through London. As the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) has mentioned, it has overrun on both time and budget, but the small upside is that Her Majesty got to open the line that bears her name during her jubilee celebrations.
The line itself, with its innovation and infrastructure, the opportunity it has provided for thousands of young people to develop their skills and the level of ambition it shows for economic growth in this country, is actually a much better tribute to Her Majesty than the speech delivered in Parliament in her name last week. We are here today to talk about how that speech achieves economic growth, and I am afraid to say that there was really very little in it at all. I think we all know and accept that economic growth, particularly at this time, is absolutely vital to support not just our small and medium-sized businesses, but all the organisations that support employment and entrepreneurship across this country.
Yesterday, we saw the unemployment figures at their lowest levels since 1974. Conservative Members, not least the Prime Minister earlier today, have highlighted that that is a good thing, which it undoubtedly is. However, we also saw that, for the first time ever, there are more vacancies across the UK economy than there are people looking for work. I think we have to look at the serious implications of that, because it is going to be a real brake on growth. If we cannot fill those vacancies and businesses cannot get people into the skilled jobs they need to push forward, grow, create opportunities and provide economic growth, that is really going to hold this country back. So it is quite a serious issue as well as being some cause for celebration, as some people have said.
One thing to highlight—everyone has been saying this—is that we are now facing 9% inflation. That means wage growth, but greater wage growth acceleration in the private sector than in the public sector, as I am seeing in my constituency. I was on a visit to Kingston Hospital the other day, and I was told that its biggest issue right now is being able to discharge patients out of hospital and back home. However, it cannot discharge patients because it cannot get them care packages, and it cannot get them care packages because people do not want to work in care for very low wages when they can get better wages working in hospitality or retail. So we need to concede that there is perhaps a dark side, as it were, to the unemployment figures, and that is really going to inhibit growth.
Another thing we are beginning to see is that we are not trading to the extent of some of our partners across the world. According to the OBR, the UK has become a less trade-intensive economy. By the fourth quarter of 2021, UK exports remained around 12% below pre-pandemic levels, and trade as a share of GDP has fallen by around 12% since 2019—2.5% more than any other country in the G7. The Government pledged in the Queen’s Speech to
“continue to champion international trade, delivering jobs across the country and growing the economy”,
yet trade is declining and there is no determined plan for growth. They have talked about their free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand, but we have highlighted on several occasions the potentially negative impact that they will have on British farming, and I do not think that the British Government are really listening to the concerns of farmers on this issue.
In my constituency of Richmond Park, businesses are telling me about the multiple barriers they face to trade that are having a direct negative impact on their ability to grow. A very successful and popular restaurant in Richmond town centre called Don Fernando’s has closed after 32 years because of myriad issues, not least the high cost of importing the food and drink from Spain on which it relied to deliver its high-quality Spanish cuisine. A drinks company has had complications with customs checks, with a complete lack of support or advice from HMRC, which left its goods in quarantine for almost three months. Obviously, any kind of food and drinks trader cannot operate when facing such delays and with fresh food or drinks being kept for that length of time. The Government really need to get on board with some of the issues being thrown up by Brexit red tape and customs checks, and they really need to work hard to unlock some of these problems if they want to support our small and medium-sized enterprises.
I want to highlight my disappointment that there was not more in the Queen’s Speech about insulation. We have talked a lot today about fuel prices, and that is a very real anxiety for many households across the country. We all know that one way of tackling that is to get to grips with some of our very poor housing stock, which obviously our low-income families are particularly impacted by. We need to see a great deal more from this Government to support households, particularly social housing tenants and their housing providers, to improve insulation and so improve energy efficiency in our housing. If we really got to grips with that now and launched a big drive right across the country, particularly for low-income families, think of the difference we could make when those fuel bills really begin to rack up in the autumn and winter. We could do that if we were really serious about it.
This is about not just the fuel bills our constituents are facing now and are dreading in the winter, but the Government’s net zero commitment, because we want to reduce carbon emissions and households are a serious contributor to them. We really need to get to grips with that issue if we are to meet our net zero commitments. I was interested to find that there are 1,690 installer businesses that meet the requirements to participate in Government schemes. There is such a great opportunity here for improving innovation, entrepreneurship and skills training right across the country, and the Government need to put some serious money and some serious thought into that as soon as they possibly can.
Finally, like other Members, I really welcome the mental health Bill, but I want to see a lot more from the Government to recognise the scale of the issue. The No. 1 problem in my constituency is access to health services of all kinds, and I am hearing concerns from constituents about dentistry, surgical procedures and GP appointments, but my experience is that the most critical issue is access to mental health services. The impact on our children of the pandemic and lockdown has been profound, and we are failing them if we do not get to grips with that impact. That impact is felt by our very youngest citizens, who were deprived of some of their early years of schooling and have so much socialisation and learning in a classroom to catch up on, and who face separation anxiety from their parents, as well as our teens and young adults, who have spent some of their critical socialising years in their bedrooms and are finding it difficult to reconnect with everyday society, especially as they move from school to whatever they are moving on to. They are finding it hard to move to university, training, further education or employment because they have missed out on some of that critical development.
I want to see the Government do a great deal more. I have multiple cases of constituents waiting for treatment. I have a young girl aged just 12 who was referred to children and adolescent mental health services in March 2021. Thirteen months later, she is still awaiting treatment. Her parents are absolutely desperate. She has been hospitalised twice and repeatedly sent home from school due to suicide attempts. Schools are under increased pressure and are struggling to cope with complex mental health needs and the sharp rise in those presenting higher levels of risk. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a dedicated qualified mental health professional in every school to provide first-level support for young people and also to help teachers struggling to deal with this issue.
There are multiple ways in which we need to respond to the challenges of our current economy and society, and I am afraid to say that the Queen’s Speech has failed in all these things. I urge the Government to do more on these issues.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am delighted to be called in this debate. I want to talk about three areas in my seven minutes: the economy, general practice, and skills and schools.
Yesterday I was delighted to receive the very good news from the House of Commons Library that unemployment had fallen by 1,725 in the year to April in my constituency. Every one of those people is an individual, able to contribute to a household budget and help with the family finances. Sometimes I do not think we realise what a jobs miracle this country’s economy has been over the years. In the middle of the last decade, the United Kingdom was creating more jobs than the whole of the rest of the European Union put together. That is an amazing jobs creation record. The fact that the economy is still enabling those jobs to be produced after the covid shock and the Ukraine shock is quite incredible. I pay tribute to all businesses large and small, and to Government policy, for enabling that to happen.
What is happening in Ukraine is having a consequence on people’s cost of living. One thinks of the storehouses in Odesa, full of grain that could go around the world to feed hungry people and that would help grain prices to come down and help us in the United Kingdom. However, because of the evil action of the Putin regime, that is not allowed to happen. Ukraine is also the world’s fourth largest producer of ammonia and fertiliser, which is having a huge impact on the problems that our farmers are facing.
I am also acutely conscious that housing, particularly in my constituency and large parts of the south-east, is a mammoth part of people’s outgoings. There is a lot of talk at the moment, quite understandably, about increasing energy and food costs. In my part of the world, it is not unusual for people’s rent to be two thirds of their income. That is simply not sustainable. It is really tough for people on lower incomes in high housing cost areas. We need to confront that. I know that the Prime Minister and the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Secretary get that, and in my view this issue at the heart of poverty issues in large parts of the south.
As has been pointed out for years by the British architect Bill Dunster OBE, the architect of Portcullis House—if that does not put those of my colleagues who have offices there off him—it is possible to build zero-energy-bill homes that sell back more energy to the grid than they draw down. Those homes would not have gas and electricity bills, which would be fantastic for our greenhouse gas emission targets and the huge energy shock that is causing so much worry and concern for many of our constituents. I know that we are reducing carbon in new homes by 70%, but I would encourage the Government to go further and faster in this area.
I note the £22 billion and the £83 billion in debt interest, but I was pleased to hear the Chancellor say yesterday:
“we will do more to support the most vulnerable”.—[Official Report, 17 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 585.]
That is absolutely right, and I look forward to seeing the details, particularly for the disabled and pensioners. Given the Chancellor’s record in getting the country through covid, I know that he will not disappoint in that area.
Richard Graham
Does my hon. Friend agree that the statistic that emerged yesterday—that we have increased the number of people with disabilities in employment to 1.3 million, after setting a target of 1 million in 2017, which we have achieved within five years—is astonishing and the result of hard work by many people, including the applicants themselves?
Andrew Selous
I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There is a wonderful Indian employer in my constituency who calls his disabled staff “differently abled”. That is a wonderful way to put it, because they have amazing gifts to bring. Often, employers will say that they are some of the most hard working and dedicated, which is why our disability confident campaign, which has clearly been successful, is so important, so I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point.
Secondly, I am focusing in particular on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and what it needs to do, and I want to raise the appalling difficulty that many of us on both sides of the House have in getting sufficient additional general practice capacity where there are huge new housing developments. We are a country that generally does public administration and planning well—for example, I rarely come across a child who does not have a school place—because we have brilliant civil servants and brilliant local authority officers. However, I must say that a major exception is general practice, where the system is not working well. I ask my Front-Bench colleagues please to note that and take it back across Government.
There is an alphabet soup of different places to go to try to get a health hub or extra GP surgeries. One could try section 106 or the community infrastructure levy. One might be lucky with the housing infrastructure fund. Perhaps one’s local authority—or even Government capital from the Treasury to the Department of Health and Social Care—will come to the rescue. It is complicated and uncertain, and we are not serving our constituents well in ensuring that general practice capacity is available. I have 14,000 new houses being built, which will help with the housing issues that I mentioned, but that is more than 36,000 new residents coming to my area for which we must have the general practice capacity. I will keep campaigning on that issue until it is resolved.
I turn to the Schools Bill. The Government are doing lots of good things in schools and skills, and never has that been more important. I am pleased to report to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the Church of England is particularly pleased with the Bill. Why is that significant? The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church run a third of the schools in England, so it is a big stakeholder. The Bishop of Durham and Nigel Genders, our chief education officer, have said how pleased they are and that they have extremely good co-operation with the Secretary of State for Education, which they are delighted with. They think they can do a lot more together. I like what we are doing on lifetime skills. T-levels are really important. There is a little more work to do on apprenticeships, but what we are doing on employer representative bodies is absolutely right.
I have a particular issue with computer numerical control operators in my area as engineering businesses are screaming to get hold of them. I am working closely with the Bedford College Group on that, which we must press through. Those jobs pay about £48,000 a year, so it is not right that we cannot get people to do them. The skills Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart)—is coming to Houghton Regis on 6 June and I look forward to his visit.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Gracious Speech the other day was most memorable for being a Queen’s Speech without a Queen. It was also an agenda from a Government without clear direction, flailing around in their 12th year. As the Institute for Government said,
“it reads like a manifesto aimed at the party base more than a realistic programme.”
That is what we get when we have an Administration diverted from the real issues of the day by self-preservation. While 38 Bills is, on the face of it, a frenetic level of legislation—it is the most in almost a decade and four times that of the last Queen’s Speech—when we strip away the bits that are reheated leftovers that the Government could not get through the Lords last time and the bits and pieces that will scrap EU regulations, we see that, paradoxically, it is a very thin speech. It is a scattergun of afterthoughts, and it puts off all the really big decisions.
When, the other day, the Prime Minister had a go at our hard-working civil service by saying that it had a mañana culture—I am told that the word translates as “tomorrow”—he seemed to identify that his own Government have been gripped with putting everything into a “too difficult for right now” box to be dealt with tomorrow. Although the words “cost of living crisis” were included in the speech’s text, it was missing any big, overarching ideas for dealing with the crippling of household finances when it comes to the weekly shop, leaving the lights on, heating the house or filling up the tank. The Government’s answer for when they might deal with any of the above, or the record inflation that we see today, is some ill-defined date in the future, but the problem is now.
Take the flagship pledge to ban buy-one-get-one-free on junk food—again, kicked into the long grass. I do not know if that is because the Conservatives are not into the nanny state or whether it was nanny who told them to do it. Whatever it is, it just reeks of timidity. The whole thing is like a bad episode of “Neighbours”, where we have No. 10 and No. 11 at war with each other. They only thing they are agreed on is that if you break the law you can get away with it—you don’t have to resign.
From the content of the Queen’s Speech, we would not know that we are in the midst of a European war, that we are coming out of a global pandemic with a spluttering economy edging perilously close to recession, or that we are in a climate crisis. Instead, what do we have? Ideological hobby horses and populist posturing. We have a higher education Bill consisting of student number controls and a lifelong loan entitlement—more dumbing down than levelling up. Then there is the freedom of speech Bill roundly condemned by everyone in the higher education sector. That is what you get when you have had enough of experts. There is a Bill to curb Insulate Britain, but nothing that would actually help to insulate Britain’s homes. With high streets increasingly boarded up and turning into cash deserts, it is shameful that food bank usage is rocketing but that in Acton banks are an extinct species. TSB has now gone in Ealing, which is going the same way.
Faced with crises at home and abroad, what is the Government’s priority? It is to privatise the widely respected Channel 4, which costs us all not a penny. It is a solution to which there is no problem. The proposal is condemned by prominent Conservatives, such as the former Culture Secretary who is now the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), a former deputy Prime Minister, who is no longer in his place, so even their own side do not like it. It was not even in the Conservative manifesto and it looks like revenge. Members might remember that that was promised when the Prime Minister did not turn up to the Channel 4 election debate and he was replaced with an ice sculpture.
We now have a Bill for BO—the laughably titled Brexit opportunities Bill—with more dead ends and might-have-beens, and more re-writing of history all over. The Prime Minister trumpeted removing VAT on domestic energy during the referendum campaign. His exact words were:
“When we vote leave, we will be able to scrap this unfair and damaging tax.”
The country obliged, but six years on, in the middle of an energy price crisis, nothing. Then there is the manifesto pledge that Brexit would allow them to ban the import of foie gras, which is so cruel to ducklings and geese. Vanished, all because the Prime Minister is too chicken to do anything about it. [Hon. Members: “Groan!”] Only warm words, but no concrete proposals on trophy hunting. All our constituents write in in their hundreds about these things—but the proposals are gone. Two years on since the promise of an employment Bill—that sounded really good, didn’t it?—employment rights, flexible working and carers’ leave have also disappeared from the Queen’s Speech, despite the P&O scandal. BO seems, concerningly, a handy cover to euphemistically deregulate and scrap protections in a race to the bottom Singapore-on-Thames, which we know at least half the Cabinet salivates for.
We now know that the plan is to leave the European Court of Human Rights, and repeal and dilute EU law bypassing Parliament. It is all very fitting for a Government with an aversion to being held to account—wasted time and populist headline chasing when we could be addressing the real crises of a country feeling the pinch. The Financial Times said it is
“red meat over real reform”,
a bunch of ill-considered, ill-timed, unnecessary and nakedly political measures: flogging off that great Thatcher legacy, Channel 4; waging a trade war with the EU; joining Russia—only Russia has done this before—in quitting the ECHR; and regulating street naming. I have knocked on loads of doors over the years every day in the run-up to elections, and no normal person on the doorstep wants any of that. Yet there is nothing to tackle the climate crisis, or to cut energy bills, or to make people more secure at work, or to turn around our struggling economy—none of the stuff that people desperately need.
The rollercoaster nature of the Government is that they are prone to knee-jerkism and tearing up their own manifesto commitments rather than thinking through problems. On this occasion, this ostensible blizzard of Bills is ultimately a too-little-too-late Queen’s Speech without a Queen. I was pleased to see that Her Majesty was on Crossrail yesterday and has been enjoying the horses recently. HRH has been an able stand-in, but maybe we can all agree that Her Majesty will deliver many more addresses from the throne, starting, as soon as possible, with one from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Leader of the Opposition, when we re-take the reins. Bring it on!
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I rise to give general support to the Queen’s Speech. There are areas about which I am particularly enthusiastic, and there are one or two areas where I have to sound a note of warning for my Whips.
I thought that the tone adopted by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was rather surprisingly wide of the mark. Their remarks were perhaps a little ungracious about the Gracious Speech. The hon. Gentleman said that the Queen’s Speech lacks content and does not really have a theme. I have here the explanatory notes for the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, given that we are talking about substance. He complained that there were Bills that would be no more than clauses in other Bills, but this Bill has 11 parts, all of which could be very substantial Bills in other cases. It recognises that the reputation of this Administration will very much depend on whether, by the next election, we have put in place the path to delivering levelling up and regeneration in practice, and that those parts of the country that lent us their vote in 2019 will convert that to a rather more permanent arrangement when they see this Administration beginning to deliver in a way that they have not seen for decades. This Bill provides a most important centre of the legislative programme and, by and large, it will have my full support.
There are specific opportunities in the Queen’s Speech. For example, the genetic technology Bill, which has been championed by our absolutely marvellous science Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman)—will open up potential opportunities for growth in our economy and investment in science and research. The United Kingdom should take the opportunities to establish global leadership in this space.
I am a veteran, and although I did not serve in the Province in my time in the armed forces, I think that the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill is the product of long consultation and wise reflection to try to find the right balance to deal with the difficult issues involved.
The Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill is to be welcomed. It recognises the long periods in which people now have to live with the prospect of knowing that their lives are coming to an end, and will extend benefits from six months to 12.
In general, I welcome the Public Order Bill, which will hold to account people who are intent on disrupting society. As for its content, however, I feel that we might have slightly missed an opportunity in imposing criminal sanctions on those people. Why not civil sanctions? If they are determined to go to the greatest trouble for the greatest number, and to impose costs on our public services and costs on people whose activities are disrupted in an unfair way—as regards the cause that protesters are trying to promote—I think that we should have explored civil sanctions rather more carefully. If people with resources are going to stick themselves to the road or tie themselves to the top of underground trains, so that the travel arrangements of others are disrupted, there is a specific opportunity to provide restoration to those who have been inconvenienced by them. As a great supporter of restorative justice, I think that we should try to widen the spread of that in the justice system, so that we hold people accountable for their actions against and damage to others.
Obviously I welcome the inclusion in the Gracious Speech of the conversion therapy ban Bill. It is still being drafted and has not yet been presented to the House, but we hope to see it before we rise for the summer recess. I say gently to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that it may be easy to make a quip and laugh at the Leader of the Opposition’s expense about what a woman looks like, but perhaps he does not need to look very much further than Bridgend to see that the question can be just a little more complicated than a first glance might suggest. I therefore think that gender identity should be included within the scope of the conversion therapy ban Bill. I will certainly lend my support to colleagues on both sides of the House to work in the direction of ensuring that we have a proper conversion therapy ban that protects people in respect both of sexuality and of gender identity.
I understand the purpose of the boycott Bill, which is described as legislation to
“prevent public bodies engaging in boycotts that undermine community cohesion.”
However, I think we need to be a little careful. I am afraid that in the last Session I supported an amendment on the subject tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick); that was an error of judgment on my part, because I was not paying sufficient attention to the business, and I do not intend to repeat that mistake if the boycott measure comes back to the House. It is designed to take away people’s ability to make a statement of their beliefs about the policy of a nation that is in gross breach of international law. Obviously the nation is question is Israel, and obviously the community cohesion being thought about relates to antisemitism within communities. I fully appreciate the Government’s concerns about the matter, but if a nation is in gross breach of the fourth Geneva convention, has invaded and then settled an occupied territory, and is killing journalists in that territory who are observing what is going on, we might just want to reflect on what capacity or ability there is in our society to say, “We don’t think that’s right,” notwithstanding the obvious associated issues of antisemitism.
Finally, on the Northern Ireland protocol Bill, the statement that we make in the Gracious Speech about our values as a society—the values of Britain post Brexit—is incredibly important. We need to be a nation that stands up for the rule of law and the rules-based international system to sustain our security and our role in the world. The enormous reputation of the City of London and of the commercial part of our justice system, in which companies from countries around the world come to have their disputes adjudicated under British law in British courts, is a huge credit to our country and our system. British law, in general, is trusted. I do not think that we should play quite so fast and loose with powers to overturn the protocol until we have explored every other conceivable option, including holding the European Union responsible for the consequences of an overly legalistic approach, which I think would be a better route.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
In the recent local elections, the Conservatives lost almost 500 council seats across Britain as the public delivered their verdict on the Conservative Government’s performance at Westminster. Voters expressed their dismay at the Chancellor’s refusal to get a grip on rising inflation or offer families support through the cost of living crisis. This Gracious Speech provided the Conservatives with an opportunity to reset by introducing legislation to meet three major challenges: tackling rising household bills, starting to grow our economy again and building into our economy the all-important resilience that we require at a time when hostile foreign states such as Russia and China are on the rise.
The Conservative Government have offered none of those things, so the entire Gracious Speech has fallen utterly and spectacularly flat. Despite the Government’s promise in the opening sentence to
“help ease the cost of living for families”,
there was nothing of the sort to be found in the speech. With household energy bills rising by £700 a year and inflation outstripping wages, we needed a Government who were ready to tackle this crisis head-on. Instead, the Conservatives are raising taxes on working people, and in this they are an outlier: no other Government are responding to the cost of living crisis by hammering working people with more taxes.
The Labour party has a clear plan. First, we would scrap the national insurance rise. Then we would reduce energy bills by as much as £600 per household per year, expand the warm home discount, and support the businesses that are hardest hit. That would be paid for by a windfall tax on the spiralling profits of oil and gas giants which, by the admission of BP bosses themselves, have
“more cash than we know what to do with”
and are effectively “a cash machine”.
However, we would also look to the long term. As well as taking those immediate crisis management measures, we would fix the foundations of Britain’s economic model. Despite the Government’s latest attempts to shift the blame, it is clear that the roots of this cost of living crisis are not global but national. The reality is that the Chancellor is presiding over a high-tax economy, and that is because, for more than a decade, the Conservatives have presided over a low-growth economy, based on insecure work and chronic underinvestment, driving a productivity crisis. Indeed, Britain has a 20% productivity gap with other leading nations. There has been chronic underinvestment by consecutive Conservative Governments in research and development, but the impact of that has been a real shortfall in investment by the private sector in the UK, compared with Europe. Figures from the OECD show that Britain’s private sector investment as a share of GDP is the lowest among the 36 members assessed.
At the heart of the decline in productivity has been the decline in our manufacturing sector. Since 2015 alone, the Government have lost more than 230,000 manufacturing jobs. The result has been an increasingly unbalanced economy, in favour of London and the south-east, and proof that the Conservatives are not levelling up, but levelling down. Communities across Britain’s proud industrial heartlands in the midlands, northern England and South Wales—home of my Aberavon constituency and our Port Talbot steelworks, of which we are immensely proud—are struggling to get a look in.
What we need is a modern manufacturing renaissance. It is far easier to drive productivity gains in the manufacturing sector than to do so in services, but this is not manufacturing based on the old industries of the past; it is modern, it is green, and it is in the high-tech industries of the future. Those are the industries that deliver the good, meaningful, productive, well-paid jobs on which people can raise a family on, and they are the jobs that will get our economy firing on all cylinders, throughout the UK. We need to get Britain making and exporting at levels that reflect our true potential.
That is why the shadow Chancellor’s “make, buy and sell more in Britain” policy is so important. A Labour Government would change procurement laws so that the British Government must buy British by default. A Labour Government would introduce a green steel deal, creating a world-leading steel industry to power us through the century ahead. A Labour Government would back 100,000 businesses with start-up loans to boost British small and medium-sized enterprises. Labour’s plan is to build a better post-covid economy, to drive growth and truly get our economy firing on all cylinders, with good jobs at its heart.
Let us contrast our approach to work and good jobs on which people can raise a family with the Conservatives’ axing of the long-promised employment Bill, which was expected to outlaw the type of dreadful business practice that we saw when 800 P&O Ferries workers were sacked and replaced by foreign workers paid less than the minimum wage. Labour would outlaw that practice immediately, across the board.
A modern manufacturing renaissance will not only help to boost growth and help us to build a vibrant, modern economy for the future; it will also help us to build that resilient economy for the future—a Britain that can stand more firmly on its own two feet. By backing British manufacturing, we can reduce supply chain pressures caused by the behaviour of authoritarian states such as Russia and China, and by the covid-19 pandemic. In that regard, an energy security plan is also crucial. Frankly, it is staggering that China owns 33% of the Hinkley Point nuclear power station.
There is too little in the UK Government’s new agenda that actually gets to the core, underlying issues that underpin this cost of living crisis. A wasted decade of low growth has left us with a weak and insecure economy that is ill-prepared for the challenges and turbulence of an uncertain world. Building that economy is the job of Government. Politicians are not bystanders in this. The Chancellor is not a victim. The Tories have become the party of high taxes and low pay because they are the party of low growth and insecurity. We believe that Britain deserves better. A Labour Government would help workers and families through this cost of living crisis and deliver the resilient, growing, sustainable economy that will get our country fit for the future.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) attacks us for being the party of low growth, but this is the party that has presided over a situation where we have more people in employment than ever before. Unbelievably, the number of vacancies is higher than the number of those who are unemployed. But he is right—this is why I am going to follow the hon. Gentleman—to focus laser-like on what we are told to talk about today, although we are allowed to stray a bit during this Queen’s Speech debate, which is achieving economic growth. That is what the British people care about. In time, we can have an interesting debate about Channel 4 privatisation, about foie gras and about conversion therapy, but those are not the overwhelming priorities of the British people at the moment. What they are concerned about is the cost of living crisis.
There has never been an easier opportunity for the Opposition to attack the Government in terms of broad economic statistics, but that ignores the fact that when the last general election took place we could not possibly have predicted the impact of a global pandemic or, unbelievably, war in Europe as a result of the cruel tyrant Putin trying to recreate an old-style empire. I would argue that no Government since the second world war have faced greater challenges. I would also contend that, generally, the Opposition have failed to provide any substantial alternative policies that would have greatly alleviated the situation in regard to the war in Ukraine or the pandemic.
I am going to hold the Government to account, however. I want to hold them to account on the tax burden. Given that families are suffering and people are lying awake at night desperately searching for a way to pay their bills, and that we are in such a crisis, we have to move in a far more radical direction on the overall tax burden. I put that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday in Treasury questions, and I was quite pleased with his response when I urged him to make this a priority.
We are now facing the heaviest tax burden since the 1940s. Freezing income tax thresholds, combined with more inflation, will push many people into higher tax thresholds. Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that
“almost all workers will be paying more tax on their earnings in 2025 than they would have been paying without this parliament’s reforms to income tax and NICs”.
The rise in inflation is projected to spark the biggest decline in living standards in any single financial year, so I follow the hon. Member for Aberavon in calling for radical policies. I am not against a windfall tax, but I am not sure that, on its own, it will make a great deal of difference after we have divided its receipts between every household in Britain. Frankly, the Chancellor has to come back to this House in time for the Budget, or preferably before, and introduce a cut in the overall tax burden.
I also want to talk about the housing crisis. If we are going to kick-start the economy and help our young people get into housing, we simply have to build much more housing. The number of dwellings where, according to building control figures, building work had started on the site was 41,600 in October to December 2021. That was a 3% decrease compared with the previous quarter and a 3% decrease compared with the same quarter of the previous year. The number of dwellings completed from October to December 2021 was 41,330, a 4% decrease on the previous quarter and an 11% decrease on the same quarter of the previous year. The fact is that this is a crisis.
I welcome that, through the Queen’s Speech, the Government are honestly attempting to find a way through the planning controls to get the housing we need, but we need a similar effort to the one we had after the second world war, when Harold Macmillan built 300,000 council houses a year. We have to see this as an absolute priority.
There is no point building more housing—and it is a crisis we need to address—or cutting taxes if, at the same time, immigration is out of control. The Government have to understand that we simply cannot replace mass immigration from the EU with mass immigration from the rest of the world, which is why the channel crossings are so totemic. The Home Secretary is right to try to address the crossings, for all the controversy.
Last week, from 9 to 15 May, 607 migrants aboard 25 boats were detected in the channel. In the week before, from 2 to 8 May, 792 migrants aboard 30 boats were detected. From 25 April to 1 May, 254 migrants aboard seven boats were detected. This cannot continue. We have to build houses, we have to control immigration, we have to cut taxes and we have to kick-start the economy.
Although there has been great criticism of the Government’s handling of the Northern Ireland protocol, we have to unite this United Kingdom. We cannot have a situation in which there is no proper Government in Northern Ireland. The fact is that the DUP will not come back into government unless we address the protocol. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) that of course we want to respect international law, but we have to sort this out.
The issues we face are urgent and important. I am sure the Government are listening, and I urge them to address these issues as dramatically as they would address the issues following a world war. The effects of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine are so grave that we should all unite, with a sense of compassion, to help people who are suffering with this level of inflation, rising costs and rising taxation.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Unlike the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, I stand not as a conduit of God but as a heretic shaking my metaphorical fist at the crumbling edifice of economic orthodoxy.
The title of today’s debate is “Achieving Economic Growth,” but to what end? For more than 70 years, successive Governments preened themselves in the mirror and admired what they saw—growth. That mirror is better known as gross domestic product and it has become our key metric for judging how beautiful we are as both an economy and a society. We use it to gauge progress and as a proxy for our collective wellbeing, yet the mirror we have been staring into all these years is less of the bathroom variety and more of the fairground variety, reflecting a distorted image at odds with the reality confronting many of our constituents over those long decades.
Growth is an illusion that is partly responsible for driving three of the key challenges we now face: rising inequality, the erosion of democracy and the climate crisis. We have had GDP growth, albeit sluggish, over the past 12 years. Hence, by our main metric of choice, our collective wellbeing should have increased, even if only incrementally. That is the logic of the message we tell our constituents, “You’ve never had it so good because the economy is growing.”
Yet, by focusing on growth, we too often evade the hard political questions about distribution. If the economic pie is growing, the proportional size of the slice matters less, but the issue still gnaws away at people’s sense of fair play. Back in 2016, during a Brexit debate, a remain campaigner told his audience:
“If we leave the EU, GDP will fall.”
He was, of course, as we have seen, correct, but that is not the point I wish to make. The point is the heckle from a lady in the audience, which came back:
“That’s your bloody GDP. Not ours.”
She knew that for millions like her the proceeds of growth were never fairly shared and that, when the economy grew, the overwhelming beneficiaries of that growth were the rich and powerful, not her. Even when it was growing but not fast enough for its main beneficiaries, it was the public services that she relied on that had to be discarded—again, in the name of economic growth.
That leads us on to the second great challenge of this century: defending democracy, not just from external threats, such as Russia, but from within. Why? Because if people do not see the reality of their lived experience reflected in the political discourse of their politicians and do not hear their reality being discussed in this place, that gulf is dangerous. Citizens end up believing they are being deceived, and nothing is more dangerous or destructive to our democracy. We must understand that our constituents’ buy-in to any political economy depends not just on their absolute wealth, but, rather, on their relative wealth to those around them. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, the more unequal a society is, the less satisfied its citizens will be. That results in political instability, higher crime rates and higher levels of mental health illness—and we wonder why demand for mental health services is going through the roof in this country.
Let us, for the sake of argument, park both democracy and inequality to the side for one moment and ask ourselves: how do we square unlimited growth on a finite planet? It is a fair question but one that never gets a remotely convincing answer. Apparently, it is through increased resource use efficiency and productivity gains. In the next half of this century, the global economy will triple the number of people who will enjoy western levels of consumption, to 3 billion,. That is despite the fact that the l billion of us already consuming that much are using 1.6 times more of the planet’s resources than is sustainable—you can do the maths. In other words, the growth delusion is a fallacy that will drive climate and ecological destruction and kill us all. Only in the warped reality of our current growth-obsessed economic model is expansion without end seen as a virtue. In biology, it is called a cancer.
Bobby Kennedy knew this truth more than 50 years ago when he made his now famous speech on the limits of GDP growth as a metric for success. He understood that GDP is mercenary, blind to morality and indifferent to suffering. GDP growth loves pollution, especially if it has to be cleared up. It relishes crime, especially if more prisons must be built. It delights in war, especially if countries require rebuilding in the aftermath. That does not mean there is no place for GDP as an economic tool but, if we are to successfully face the existential challenges of this century, we need new political tools for measuring wellbeing, the health of our democracy, and the ecological and climate cost of our economic activities.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), who addressed the topic of today’s debate, “Achieving economic growth”, by seeming to argue that economic growth is not only not important, but not desirable. I wonder therefore whether he will be having a word with his Front-Bench team, who seem to have spent most of the afternoon criticising the Government for not delivering sufficient economic growth, but that is a matter for him.
It is a pleasure to take part in today’s debate, to address the issue in question and to raise one or two points about the Queen’s Speech. Successful growth will be delivered through the effective role of the private sector. It is the private sector that is the wealth generator. I was delighted that the Chief Secretary accepted that reality in his opening remarks.
Both the economy generally and individual businesses face exceptional challenges, ones that have not been encountered for generations. Those challenges revolve around the recovery from the covid pandemic and, now, the need to address the issues arising from the conflict in Ukraine and its impact on energy prices.
I recently spent a really interesting lunch time with the Coventry and Warwickshire chamber of commerce. I expected those who attended to talk to me about supply chain problems and the challenges presented by inflation, but the biggest single issue they wanted to talk about was ensuring that they had a workforce with the right skills and the recruitment and retention of their staff. We have heard about jobs from many Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who spoke about the “jobs miracle”. The ONS tells us that unemployment is at its lowest since 1974 and job vacancies are at a record high of 1.295 million. In fact, we have more vacancies than people looking for work. The unemployment rate is now just 3.7%, which is the lowest rate for 50 years. The figures for my constituency tell exactly the same story, with unemployment falling and vacancies rising.
However, the current situation creates real challenges for businesses. As consumers, we recognise the effect of staff shortages: short-staffed businesses do not have the time to answer the phone or respond to inquiries, and there is a decline in service levels. Significantly for both businesses and the broader economy, opportunities are missed. In previous years, UK companies were able to look to eastern Europe to fill vacancies when they had staff and skills shortages, but that has become less of an option following our departure from the European Union. Businesses have raised with me the loss from the workforce of people in the 50 to 70 age demographic who either lost or left their jobs during the pandemic. The Government should focus on how we might get such experienced people back into the workforce.
There have been a lot of references in the debate to the ONS and its reports. Just a few months ago, in March 2022, the ONS published a report on its over-50s lifestyle study, which looked at the motivation of 50 to 70-year-olds who left employment during the pandemic. The ONS found that 77% of those aged 50 to 59 had left sooner than they had expected or intended to. It found that 19% had left because of stress or mental health, but that 58% would consider returning the workforce and 15% actively wanted to return. Were those people to return to the workforce, 36% of them would consider a flexible attitude to working to be most important, and 69% would want to work part time. It is important for the Government to consider ways to get such people back into the workforce, because they have valuable experience and can make a contribution. I saw an example of the people I am talking about in the volunteers I worked with on the delivery of the vaccine programme. Demand exists in the economy but it is not being fulfilled. We need to put the two things together.
In achieving economic growth, it is important for investors, customers, suppliers and the workforce to be able to understand the true state of a company. I note the Government’s interest in restoring trust in our audit and reporting systems through our corporate governance system. I am a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and we have looked at auditing, so I was disappointed to see that the audit reform Bill in the Queen’s Speech remains only in draft form. I want to see swift action to ensure that the full Bill comes to the House as promptly as possible. We know about the dominance of the big four, and we have had many reports and three independent reviews, as well as the work done by the Select Committee. I want the Government to make sure that a transparent and effective audit system is introduced. There are plenty of reports calling for change, and we have seen the events at Carillion, Patisserie Valerie, Thomas Cook, P&O Ferries and BHS. We need to rectify the situation, and I hope that the audit reform Bill is brought forward.
It is important to equalise growth across the country, and the levelling-up provisions are incredibly important in that regard. On the planning system, I want to ensure that an adequate supply of land is made available for businesses. That is an issue in my constituency. We are at the centre of England, making ours an ideal location for the logistics businesses that want to serve the country, but land is rapidly being taken up. I am concerned that, even now, many local councils have no up-to-date local plan, and instead rely on applications coming in and development control.
I note some of the provisions on local involvement, but the current neighbourhood plans are too bureaucratic and long-winded and take too long to implement. I note, too, the attempt to give people more involvement in planning issues and the principle of street referendums, but I am uneasy about those proposals as they may become a vehicle for disputes between neighbours. The Government may also have a real challenge in defining what constitutes a street.
Housing supply is a vital part of economic growth. Building homes is an economic activity, and of course new housing provides homes for workers, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) reminded us a few moments ago. In my constituency, we have probably one of the best examples in the country of delivering new housing at volume through the development of Houlton, the sustainable urban extension to Rugby, which is being developed by Urban&Civic. That massive developer has great control over the activities of the house builders, and I believe that it is creating communities as well as building homes. It is vital that we provide the infrastructure first. In Rugby, we now have a link road to the main urban community, and both primary and secondary schools, but the challenge is to get the healthcare provision in place. There is a great deal of development in Rugby, and I am proud of what we have achieved.
I conclude by noting that there are many provisions in the Queen’s Speech that will support our businesses and enable growth and development to take place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hope that we can manage without a formal time limit, but that means that I must ask colleagues to stick to about six minutes. Six minutes and 20 seconds is okay, but eight minutes is not.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and his broad critique of the Queen’s Speech.
Today’s inflation figures add to mounting evidence of UK stagflation. The Conservatives’ record is of 12 years of failure to create an economy that delivers wellbeing for people across the United Kingdom—let us remember that they have been responsible for the economy for 12 years. From the banking crisis to the present day, the Conservative party has sought out every opportunity to impose austerity and to bring about a hard Brexit of its own making. Those have combined to aggravate the UK’s cost of living crisis. Yes, there have been other causes, which have been beyond our control, and possibly beyond any Government’s control, but these are ideological choices that will go down in history as Tory creations. Out of ideas other than to centralise powers that they do not possess and blame what they do not know, the Conservatives sit on their hands as the economy for which they are responsible fails to work for households and businesses across the UK.
The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill does nothing to correct past mistakes or deliver for the future. The Welsh Government have stated that this Government’s post-Brexit funding arrangement for Wales falls short by £772 million of structural funds alone for the period 2021 to 2025. That is not only
“an assault on Welsh devolution”—
not my words, but the words of Labour’s Minister for Economy—but a broken election promise. More broadly, sources including Bloomberg illustrate a failure to maintain current standards, let alone deliver any improvement, across most of the UK and especially across Wales.
That is not what was promised on page 15 of the 2019 Welsh Conservatives manifesto, which said that
“no part of the UK loses out from the withdrawal of EU funding”.
It is certainly not what was promised on page 29, which said that
“Wales will not lose any powers or funding as a result of our exit from the EU.”
Three years into this Parliament and six years on from Brexit, this Government cannot articulate or deliver any clear benefits to Wales. We need an honest funding settlement, devolved engagement and a focus on delivery rather than glossy announcements.
Other elements of the Queen’s Speech also give pause for thought. Rather than correcting Wales’s underfunding of more than £5 billion from HS2, it gives us—wait for it—Great British Railways. Rather than working with Transport for Wales, our publicly owned transport body, it seems that Westminster’s solution to historical underfunding is to override our solution while not correcting the underlying problems that need fixing. Put bluntly, this Government’s approach to a difficult problem is to stick a Union Jack on it and sing a song of praise to past glories. Nostalgia does not an economy make.
Plaid Cymru drove the creation of the Development Bank of Wales, yet its future, and how the new UK infrastructure bank will work with rather than over the devolved institutions, is unclear. We do not know how what we are operating for ourselves to improve the economy of Wales will align with what is being done in Westminster. That is not good government.
Alison Thewliss
The right hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The Scottish National Investment Bank is already up and running, but there is nothing from the Government on how that will interact with their plans either.
Liz Saville Roberts
Exactly. The lack of clarity and working together does not help anybody’s economy.
This Queen’s Speech does nothing for the basics of the Welsh economy or to address the ongoing cost of living crisis. I reiterate Plaid Cymru’s call for an emergency Budget and measures including a windfall tax, increased energy bill support and the expansion of the rural fuel duty relief scheme for Wales.
Net zero is obviously in the Queen’s Speech but, alas, missed opportunities include the devolution of the Crown Estate and the establishment of a Welsh national energy company to support local renewable generation and fix grid capacity—measures, by the way, that Plaid Cymru has agreed with Labour in Wales through our co-operation agreement. It is good to see politicians working together in the common interest of all the people in all our communities, rather than in conflict. I ask the Government to address the shortage of grid capacity somehow, because without further grid capacity in many areas of Wales we cannot grow our own renewable supplies and make the best of that opportunity.
Westminster’s refusal to countenance legitimate devolved proposals to boost our economy scorns our democratic voice. It emphasises how, until we have full powers over our future, we will always be treated as second best, simultaneously mocked for seeking handouts and told to be contented with handouts.
I hope the Chancellor will address the immediate crisis with an emergency Budget, or whatever he chooses to call it, including measures such as a reformed SME tax relief in Wales to boost productivity as a first step. I also hope the UK Government’s vaunted Great British Nuclear will work with and learn from Wales’s existing Cwmni Egino, which is already at work to develop the nuclear licensed site of Trawsfynydd.
Where there is a problem, it seems the UK Government’s answer is to cobble together a UK-branded institution to wallpaper over the self-perpetuating vortex effect of research funding, public investment and targeted tax relief that keeps the south-east of England within the pale of economic privilege and the rest of England’s regions, Northern Ireland and the nations of Scotland and Wales, as always, beyond it.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I will focus my remarks on the work of SMEs in driving economic growth. As we often say in this place, they, more than anything else, are the engine room of economic growth.
Taking a step back from that, the most important thing in driving economic growth—the foundation of which is productivity, which leads to prosperity—is more competition. Competition is very good for opportunity but also very good for consumers: it drives down prices and drives up service. When we started our estate agent business back in 1992, we quickly got to a leading market share in our marketplace. We were doing quite well. Two or three years later, we noticed lots of other “For Sale” and “To Let” boards popping up all over the place as new competition came in and was taking market share from us. Suddenly we were no longer the new kids on the block—the people who had got to No. 1. We had been pushed off our perch as the market leader. That made us look at what we were doing and become more efficient and more effective, work harder, and put a new package together so that we could once again become market leaders. That is the effect of competition—the driving force behind all the benefits for consumers that we see from competition. That is how it works in reality.
Clive Lewis
What competition drives the energy, water and rail sectors? They seem to be natural monopolies, if I am not mistaken, so can the hon. Gentleman tell me how the free market and competition help to drive down prices in those sectors?
Kevin Hollinrake
That is quite interesting, because energy distribution was very competitive in this country, with a huge expansion in the number of energy distributors that led to a driving down of prices very effectively. Where people got caught out was with the huge increase in wholesale costs, which drove lots of them out of business. However, that was an excellent example of how competition does work and drives down prices for consumers and increases choice. As to source energy, I agree that there are not enough big producers, which is why we must be careful when one or two big companies dominate the marketplace.
G.K. Chesterton said:
“Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”
That is why we need to focus on competition, making sure that the environment is very attractive to new businesses starting up and growing—SMEs. All our policies should focus on small businesses, not on big businesses, which can generally look after themselves.
We have to look at the brutal facts, I am afraid. I was a bit disappointed, as I said earlier, by what the Governor of the Bank of England said to the Treasury Committee about some of the issues we are seeing with labour shortages, which are driving inflation. We looked at some of the issues that SMEs, in particular, are facing in terms of accessing labour. In 2020, the last year we have reliable data for, net migration into the UK dropped by 88% from 271,000 people down to 34,000 people. People may say that is a good thing because we wanted to get a hold of immigration, and some of it may be due to covid effects. Nevertheless, pubs, restaurants and farmers, all of whom are generally SMEs, are finding life very difficult. We have to make sure that there is an available supply of labour. Another issue causing particular problems for SMEs is red tape at the borders—non-tariff barriers, as they might be called. There is a 45% reduction in the number of SMEs exporting to the European Union. These are facts we have to confront and deal with.
Levelling up is of particular interest to me as a representative of the north—from the north and for the north. We need to make sure that we level up properly and that the opportunities are spread equally nationwide. It is a huge undertaking. In relative terms, the gap between the north-east and London and the south-east in terms of productivity per capita is as wide as it was between East Germany and West Germany prior to reunification. It took 30 years and $2 trillion to narrow that gap. It is the right thing to do but it is a long haul. We need to get the private sector to invest, which was the lesson from East Germany. Such things as the enterprise investment scheme and the seed enterprise investment scheme are vital for equity investment to SMEs. Those measures are due to expire in 2025, and we need to see them extended. I would also like to see enhanced tax breaks for the EIS and SEIS so that businesses in the less well-off parts of the country can attract more investment capital into those areas.
Finally, one thing could make a massive difference. Lots of SMEs in this country will not borrow—some 73% would rather grow more slowly than borrow—which is partly because of the lack of trust between small businesses and big banks. Other parts of the world have something called regional mutual banks—Germany is a good example—that expanded lending during the financial crisis. In the UK, we contracted lending during the financial crisis—about 20% on either side. Regional mutual banks lend more into the economy at key times, and that could be a good policy for driving SMEs forward in our regions.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). This marks my fifth Queen’s Speech in this House. In that relatively short time, we have had two Prime Ministers, Brexit, a global pandemic and now a brutal cost of living crisis, yet one fact has remarkably stayed the same: this Government’s inability to rise to the challenge. They have not risen to the challenges faced by ordinary Brits, and sadly this Government-drafted Queen’s Speech follows the same disappointing pattern and fails to grasp the severity of the situation faced by millions of people across our country.
At every turn, the absence of any real help is an insult to hard-working people. The experts are clear: more than 1.5 million British households will soon face bills for food and energy that will exceed their disposable income after housing costs. Inflation is now at its highest level for 40 years at 9% and is set to soar very soon to more than 10%. Alarmingly, growth is forecast by the Bank of England to be negative next year.
Beyond these statistics are people. Many Members have already eloquently highlighted the real-life struggles their constituents face, and sadly Slough is no different. I have had constituents tell me that they have been forced to cut down to one meal a day or wear extra layers of clothes in their own homes. What is stopping Ministers from acting, for example with a one-off windfall tax on energy companies? Instead of taxing big energy companies posting extra profits in the billions, the Chancellor is more intent on taxing ordinary people, who are now afflicted with the highest tax burden since the 1960s.
Even when people are in work, they cannot expect to be offered adequate protection. The Queen’s Speech was 874 words, yet there was not one mention of workers’ rights. There was no employment Bill, as promised in the Conservatives’ election manifesto. We live in a time when workers’ rights are more important than ever, with insecure work, inadequate wages and unscrupulous tactics from employers, but instead of taking action, Government Ministers go about telling workers to work more or to get another job and do not offer a decent pay rise. It is absolutely absurd.
Where the Government have decided to legislate, they have completely missed the mark. Their priorities are all wrong. On crime in particular, we have had four Queen’s Speeches and three manifestos, yet the victims Bill still exists only in draft. That is of little use to the thousands of victims of crime unable to benefit. Crime is up and prosecutions are down to record lows. The number of arrests has dropped by 35,000, but victims and communities such as mine are still suffering. This Government have made huge cuts to Slough’s local youth services funding, made a real-terms cut to school budgets and cut community safety funding by 40% by 2024, even though our crime rate is 28% higher than the rest of the south-east and 27% above the national average. This Queen’s Speech offers nothing to address all that.
On housing, despite almost 1 million more people now living in private rented accommodation, it has taken this long for us to see the renters reform Bill. Although there is slow progress in some areas, there is no word on the promised 300,000 homes to be built every year by the mid-2020s, a lack of detail on the decent homes standard, and no mention of the lifetime deposit. Frustratingly, five years on from the deadly Grenfell tragedy, far too many of my Slough constituents remain trapped in flats with unsafe cladding and fire safety defects, with no end in sight.
This Queen’s Speech simply fails to address the problems that ordinary people up and down our country face, because Government Members do not fully understand the everyday realities of hard-working people. Where is the ambition to decarbonise our economy and our public transport system, to insulate our homes and to accelerate the transition to renewables? Where are the annual rolling programme of rail electrification, annual targets for more rail freight, and huge investment in green industry jobs? What are a Government for if not to protect people?
Privatising Channel 4 over helping families with household bills, street referendums for extensions over investing in youth services, arguing over what human rights to scrap instead of delivering a properly funded state pension—this Queen’s Speech was written by a Government who are out of touch and out of ideas. I implore Ministers to see what is so plainly happening around them and to do something to help the millions of struggling Brits. If they will not address the serious issues facing our country, they should step aside for those of us who will.
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the Gracious Speech in the year of Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee. I welcome the focus on strengthening the economy and achieving economic growth that this Queen’s Speech provides after the huge impact of the covid pandemic on all sectors of the economy.
Levelling up local infrastructure is key to securing economic growth, and I welcome the steps the Government are taking to invest in our nation’s infrastructure and transport links. Burton and Uttoxeter sit within the manufacturing heart of the country, and the A50-A500 corridor is home to both national and global brands, including JCB, Toyota, Nestlé, Rolls-Royce and many more. They rely on that vital link for connecting to international markets and trade around the globe. To support economic growth, new jobs and better connectivity for business and for my constituents, vital improvements are needed to this corridor.
Recently, Midlands Connect published its “The Road to Success” report, outlining suggested developments to the corridor that would create over 12,000 jobs and generate £12 billion for the economy. With the improvements, commuters driving on the central section of this corridor, where the junction at Uttoxeter has been identified as a priority element of the strategy, would be likely to get back 3.5 working days a year by 2050. As the project champion for the improvements to the A50-A500 north midlands manufacturing corridor, I look forward to continuing to champion the project with Ministers, and making the case for the economic growth that these improvements will bring to my constituency and the wider economy.
As well as improving infrastructure, it is vital that we continue to level up our towns, so I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to this important strategy. I was delighted that Burton was awarded £23.8 million from the towns fund to deliver transformative regeneration for the town. This includes reconnecting the town centre to the River Trent, making it an attractive location to visit, live and do business. I am also pleased that we have the chance to submit a bid for the second round of the levelling-up fund, complementing the town deal investment and completing the transformation of the High Street for generations to come. I look forward to the outcome of the local consultation and discussions about how we can continue to level up Burton and Uttoxeter, and I hope that as a priority 1 area the town’s bid will be received favourably as it seeks to deliver on that vision of levelling up.
Of course, one of the key industries in Burton and Uttoxeter is the brewing sector, and I was pleased to welcome Staffordshire-based businesses to Parliament recently, ahead of Staffordshire Day, to promote fantastic local businesses and producers. They included Molson Coors, which recently invested £25 million in its Burton site, which is a sign of its commitment to continued innovation in the great brewing town of Burton. Breweries and the wider hospitality sector have been hit very hard by the impact of the pandemic and the current rise in the cost of living. During the pandemic, the Chancellor reduced VAT on hospitality goods and services, which was of huge benefit to businesses in my constituency. However, disruption to these businesses is still being felt, and I would take this opportunity to urge the Government to reconsider the proposal of the Long Live the Local campaign for a permanent hospitality VAT rate of 12.5%. That could generate an additional turnover of £7.7 billion and an additional 286,850 jobs over 10 years.
I welcome this Queen’s Speech and the Government’s ongoing commitment to levelling up and supporting economic growth, and I look forward to continuing to support opportunities for investment across Burton and Uttoxeter, such as the vital improvements to the A50-A500 corridor, that my constituents elected me to deliver.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I was very disappointed by the Gracious Speech as it failed to deal with a number of things that really matter to my constituents and, I believe, to the country at large. First and foremost, and we have heard this mentioned many times today, the cost of living crisis is clear: inflation is nearing 10%, economic growth has been revised down, we have the slowest recovery in the G7, interest rates are up and real wages have fallen below 2008 levels. The impact of that on my constituents and people across the country is huge. They are having to choose between heating and eating. That phrase has been used quite a lot today, but these choices are real, not imagined, as some Conservative Members like to suggest.
The Government are refusing to help those people. Why? I am not trying to be controversial, but perhaps, fundamentally, it is because certain people in the Government do not care and hold ordinary people in contempt. Why do I say that, and where did this rot start? In 1995, the current Prime Minister penned an article in The Spectator claiming that working-class men are
“likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless”.
Did he stop there? No, he said that the children of single mothers are
“ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate”.
It is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
One may ask whether perhaps the Prime Minister is just one bad apple—wrong! The current Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Business, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary co-authored a pamphlet in 2011 that claimed
“the British are among the worst idlers in the world.”
I would like them to come to Bolton South East and tell that to the care assistants, the cleaners and the retail workers, who are often working more than 50 hours a week on the minimum wage just to make ends meet, and see their reaction and what they have to say.
On the morning round a few days ago, a Home Office Minister said that people can move to “a better-paid job” or “take on more hours” to address the crisis. In my constituency, there are not many better-paid jobs and everyone is already working more than they need to do. Then we had the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) claiming that people can cook meals for 30p and implying that poverty was a choice. Well, as somebody who cooks quite regularly, I can tell him that we cannot get a meal for 30p, even when we are cooking at home. Many people in my constituency of Bolton South East have written to me feeling very insulted and saying that they cannot actually afford to use their oven because of energy costs. I say that, frankly, it is insulting to my constituents.
There is, however, another option—a real plan to fix the cost of living crisis. In the first three months of this year, Shell made £5 billion in profit and BP £7 billion. Those profits have been made through the charges paid by us, the consumers. The Labour party has constantly pushed for a windfall tax on oil and gas companies—calls that have so far fallen on deaf ears—to fund a real support package for working families, rather than the £150, which is a loan that people will have to repay. We have also suggested that VAT on energy bills should be removed for the lowest paid and that the universal credit allowance should be increased. I know that the Government think the universal credit allowance is somehow a benefit for those not working, but many of those receiving it are working, yet their pay is so low that they still need to rely on state benefits. The £20 a week reduction in the universal credit allowance has affected £14,000 of my constituents—people for whom this is very important benefit. We have also asked for the warm home discount to be expanded, which would also help by keeping energy bills down.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is making an excellent and heartfelt speech, which I am sure the whole House is listening to intently. Does she agree that part of the problem is that many of our poorest constituents live in some of the worst-insulated houses and that we urgently need to tackle this problem?
Yasmin Qureshi
That is absolutely right, and their situation is exacerbated by that. Often they also have damp in their homes, which has not been sorted out. Yet the Government refuse to act and say there is no money, but we know that they wasted £39 billion on track and trace, when the same system in France cost only about £3 billion to roll out. So the money is there if there is the will to use it.
There was also nothing in the Budget to deliver better infrastructure, trams and trains in my constituency. There was nothing about building more social housing and affordable housing, in particular by using brownfield sites to meet housing shortages. The Government say they are interested in renewables and tackling climate change, yet real investment—which the Labour party has also argued for—could create good jobs and eventually reduce our dependence on energy supplies from other countries, as the Ukraine war has shown the need for.
This was a missed opportunity to deal with many issues, including first and foremost the cost of living crisis. The Government have refused to do that. As far as I am concerned, they really do not care about my constituents.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), but I am sorry that she, like others, has chosen to misrepresent my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson). I suggest that she goes and listens to what he actually said.
I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the Queen’s Speech on our final day of debate, when we have the opportunity to discuss achieving economic growth. I spent my entire career in manufacturing businesses before becoming an MP in 2019, and I firmly believe in the power of economic growth and investment to change towns and the lives of people in them. In order to do so, it is important to encourage both the physical and human assets that are necessary to sustain an economic ecosystem.
It is also critical that the Government support our people through the cost of living challenges. I am confident that our Chancellor will deliver on that in cohesion with his Cabinet colleagues. I note that earlier in the debate the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) indicated that 33% of people would benefit from Labour’s windfall tax proposal to the tune of £600, yet the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) has apparently said that the rest would also get £200. So while they indicate that there would be £3 billion in tax receipts, they propose to spend £8 billion. They either disagree with each other or it is classic Labour maths and misrepresentation.
Yasmin Qureshi
In my opinion we are facing a cost of living crisis. I do not care whether it costs £3 billion or £8 billion; the Government need to bring out the money to look after those people.
Paul Howell
Of course the Government need to look after those people, and the Chancellor will do that cohesively with the rest of the Cabinet, but we must focus on the importance of resilience, particularly for our national assets. The past two years have demonstrated the fragility of supply chains and the risk of geopolitical instability affecting consumers in the UK. We need to increase the use of some of our new-found Brexit freedoms to ensure that nationally strategic assets are kept in British hands.
Economic growth and levelling up go hand in hand. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for “left behind” neighbourhoods, I am convinced that we cannot have the latter without the former. That is why, when making spending decisions, the Treasury should emphasise creating new business clusters in left-behind areas. For that to happen, we need a skilled workforce in the area. That is why I think that, of all the Bills in the Queen’s Speech, the one that will have the greatest economic impact on areas with historically lower levels of economic growth will be not any of the legislation sponsored by BEIS or the Treasury but the higher education Bill.
The north-east is already on the right track. My constituency is fortunate enough to be surrounded by five universities, all of which do excellent work. To the north of Sedgefield, Northumbria University has done particularly well recently, leaping from No. 50 to No. 23 in the latest research excellence framework ranking. Together with Durham University, it is well on the way to creating a northern research powerhouse, which is further enhanced by the complementary provisions of Newcastle, Sunderland and Teesside universities. The Bill seeks to improve standards in education generally, and the aspect that I am most excited about is the lifelong loan entitlement, guaranteeing four years of post-18 study, which will allow more career flexibility for those who have not undertaken any further or higher education. It will ensure that they have the chance to get an education to work in skilled industries. We also need to enhance the broader opportunities for people through supporting T-levels and engaging more university technical colleges such as UTC South Durham in Newton Aycliffe as well as ensuring that opportunities exist for those who have had further education in the past but now want to redirect their talents.
One of my primary focuses for delivery is speaking up for the businesses in Sedgefield, whether they are the extraordinary science-led businesses in NETPark, substantial employers such as Gestamp, Hitachi, Crafter’s Companion and 3M in Newton Aycliffe or the myriad smaller enterprises in the Aycliffe industrial estate and spread around in places such as Trimdon, Chilton, Fishburn, Wingate, Wheatley Hill, Thornley and Ferryhill. They all matter, and they all need encouragement. On Friday, I will be talking at the “make your mark” awards at Aycliffe business park, meeting businesses that I have seen before such as Husqvarna, Stillers, Ebac, Roman and Gestamp as well as the newcomers, the apprentices, the innovators and the environmentalists. We have such variety and diversity, and we need to encourage each and every one of them. They need to know that the Government’s strategy supports them, and delivering infrastructure such as bringing the train station back to Ferryhill and tax breaks for capital investment are all part of the mix.
Clusters rarely develop organically; they are usually the result of a strategy that co-ordinates investment in an area. Those strategies must consider the appropriateness of sectoral support as well. For example, as part of our drive to reach net zero by 2050, the Government are rightly keen to support investment in electric vehicles. An EV strategy, for example, must therefore support new businesses looking to work on EVs and help existing companies to adapt their current output to them. While I will always support further inward investment, considering how much expertise and jobs the established companies tend to have, the Government would do well to focus their primary efforts there.
Another part of the strategy is led by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), with his focus on science and innovation. I encourage him in his support of the north-east space hub as part of a co-ordinated national approach to space. I direct him in particular to the asset base that we have in Sedgefield when he considers promoting the semiconductor industry. We have everything from II-VI, which is a major manufacturer, through to Evince, Filtronic, Kromek, INEX, Isocom, Northern Space and Security and PragmatIC in our interrelated clusters in the areas of advanced material electronics, resilient communications and space. The development of clusters to support UK resilience founded on existing platforms of enterprise can be transformational in levelling up places such as Sedgefield.
While the Minister has been to NETPark, he and his colleagues would be very welcome to visit more of this extraordinary supply chain. That would also enable them to see the fabulous cultural offers demonstrated in the outstanding County Durham bid for city of culture and the proposed levelling-up bid that would enhance the living environment for so many in Newton Aycliffe. I encourage our pragmatic Chancellor and innovative Prime Minister to deliver on those Bills and to remember Keynes, who said:
“What do you do when the facts change? I change my mind.”
We are in an ever-changing world, and we need to remain as flexible as possible.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
For a party that prides itself on the economy, the Tories have a shocking record of running it. Our economy has the slowest growth in the G7. We have greater regional inequality than almost any other developed nation. Food banks now do the job of Government in providing for families—families that are more often than not in work.
The Government could start solving this crisis by providing solutions, such as closing tax-avoidance loopholes or creating a windfall tax for energy companies. Instead, we get endless Bills paying lip service to a manufactured culture war. The priority is not the economy. It seems to be things like protecting freedom of speech, yet the Tories are the ones who banned schools in England from using sources that are not overtly pro-capitalist. They are cracking down on freedom of assembly and protest. They are privatising Channel 4, when the Culture Secretary did not even know that Channel 4 receives no public money, so the argument is not financial. When we consider, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) touched on earlier, that the Culture Secretary was once a key focus of a Channel 4 documentary about the influence that Christian fundamentalism has on UK politics, it becomes even more concerning that this decision is political and personal. It is not professional.
Most terrifying of all, however, is that the Government literally want to get rid of the Human Rights Act. That begs the question: for whom do they think rights have gone too far? Do they know how scary it is to sit at home and wonder if it is you—is it your rights that are up for grabs? We have witnessed Windrush. Our economic strategy is to open our doors to the rest of the world when we need their hard work and then chuck them out 50 years later without a word’s notice. We tell our own citizens that their safety cannot be guaranteed in Rwanda, but we are perfectly happy to ship asylum seekers, people fleeing war and persecution, over to Rwanda as though they are cattle to be dealt with by someone else and despite knowing that the plan costs more than it will ever save.
This is just little England elites drunk on the memory of a British empire that no longer exists. We have the lowest pensions in Europe and the lowest sick pay. We pretend the minimum wage is a living wage when it is not. We miss our own economic targets time and again. We are happy to break international law. We are turning into a country where words hold no value.
Over the last 12 years, I fear we have been sleepwalking closer and closer to the F word. I know everyone is scared to say it for fear of sounding over the top or being accused of going too far, but I say this with all sincerity. When I say the F word, I am talking about fascism—fascism wrapped in red, white and blue. You may mock and you may disagree, but fascism does not come in with intentional evil plans or the introduction of leather jackboots. It does not happen like that. It happens subtly. It happens when we see Governments making decisions based on self-preservation, based on cronyism, based on anything that will keep them in power, when we see the concentration of power while avoiding any of the scrutiny or responsibility that comes with that power. It arrives under the guise of respectability and pride, which will then be refused to anyone who is deemed different. It arrives through the othering of people and the normalisation of human cruelty. I do not know how far down that road we are. Time will tell, but the things we do in the name of economic growth—the warning signs are there for everyone else to see, whether they admit it or not.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to support the legislative agenda that the Government set out in the Queen’s Speech. When Harold Macmillan was asked what the greatest challenge facing a statesman was, he famously responded, “Events, dear boy, events”. During my entire time in this place, we have been buffeted by extraordinary, frightening events, not least for our constituents up and down the country, including in my constituency. There has been fear of the health consequences of the global pandemic, as well as its economic consequences on lives and livelihoods, and the pandemic is still having an impact across the globe, notably in China. The effect on supply chains of the covid resurgence in China, including in Shanghai, is also having a devastating economic impact.
We have had to face Russia’s evil and unjustified invasion of Ukraine. Not only have we rightly imposed sanctions, which the whole House supports, but the invasion itself has had an economic impact. The Governor of the Bank of England warned this week at the Treasury Committee of the “apocalyptic” prospects for food prices. He also said clearly that 80% of the causes of inflation was due to global factors. That makes Government intervention very difficult. This is a very challenging time and the cost of living crisis is very challenging for any Government who face it. They are being buffeted by global events.
After listening to some very fine and impassioned speeches from Opposition Members, I cannot help but remember that, if things had gone differently, and if they had had their way, the leader talking to our NATO allies and shepherding this country through these economic and security crises would have been the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and we would have had a Chancellor who brandished the little red book in this Chamber. So thank goodness—I believe this very strongly—that it is a Conservative Government who have been shepherding this economy and country through unprecedented, back-to-back crises over the past few years and who will continue to do so.
This Government, in shepherding and controlling the economy, have enabled us to support lives and livelihoods for the past few years to the tune of £400 billion. They continue to support people in need with a package currently of £22 billion for measures that include reducing fuel duty, raising national insurance thresholds, increasing the national living wage and others.
The heroes of the pandemic were our doctors, nurses and key workers. The future heroes in this global crisis will be the business owners, the workers in businesses and those who are innovating and starting new businesses. As I see it—I have said this before in the Chamber—that is where the Government’s role is that of a groundsman. It is about setting the pitch and conditions for our bowlers and batsmen to be able to respond to the difficult balls and to knock the easy balls out of the park. I see the context of this Queen’s Speech as one where, as the groundsman, we put in place those conditions, so that our players can play the best game available.
As the Chief Secretary set out, that means dealing with skills, innovation and infrastructure. All those measures are included in the Queen’s Speech: the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill; the Brexit freedoms Bill; proposals on data reform and financial services to support our critical venture capital industry; the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill; and the higher education Bill. This is a consistent, thought-through package of legislation that will deal with the global and domestic challenges in the years ahead. I absolutely commend it to the House.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). Today, we listened again to the Prime Minister telling us that we had a strong economy, yet when Labour left office only 26,000 people a year were going to food banks and now there are 2.6 million—100 times as many. We heard that 500,000 more people are in work than before the covid pandemic, but according to the ONS there are 444,000 fewer people in work—the Prime Minister conveniently missed out the self-employed. He said, “We are the low-tax party,” but taxes are now at a 50-year high and the Chancellor increased taxes by £40 billion last year. The tax share of GDP is at a level not seen since Attlee, when we were coming out of the second world war and we needed to charge such taxes.
Inflation is at a 40-year high. There is a departmental freeze on spending, so there are savage cuts across the board. [Interruption.] I see the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—the Minister for Brexit opportunities and Government inefficiency—chattering away, living up to his title in the delivery of inefficiency. The truth is that inflation, ironically, is helping the Government’s revenues. They have a four-year freeze on personal allowances and tax thresholds, which means a creeping increase in tax as people sink into tax thresholds and allowances go down in real terms. They are planning a cynical attempt to drop tax before the next election in 2024 or 2025. That will be gobbled up by that inflationary clawback. People will think that they are getting a tax cut, but will lose twice the amount.
Is there an alternative? The answer, of course, is yes, and the evidence is that in the 10 years to 2008, when Labour was in power, the economy grew by 40%. We did not just give the proceeds away; we used them to double investment in the health service, double investment in education and bring millions of young people and pensioners out of poverty. We bequeathed a debt-to-GDP ratio of 45%; it is now 90%, so the share of debt has doubled. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that, if our trend of growth had continued, people would be £11,000 better off than they are today. They would be much more resilient to the global shocks that we have all seen, including Ukraine and covid.
There has been catastrophic mismanagement since 2010. It started with Osborne’s austerity, which simply did not work: it just drove down growth, because people were expecting that they might be one of the 400,000 people he said he was going to sack. We then had the stupidity of hard Brexit, when we decided that we would all be outside the single market. There is no move now for product realignment or a minimum amount of worker movement to allow lower-cost market access, which is what businesses want, so a third of businesses that have been exporting to the EU now say that they will not do it at all.
We have a low-growth, high-cuts, high-tax, wage-cutting Government—a complete failure. I appreciate that a windfall tax is not the complete answer, but let us understand what a windfall tax is. The oil companies worked on a marginal profit that was quite healthy; then, all of a sudden, Putin invaded and there was an escalation in the price and a massive profit over the cost of production that the companies did not do anything to deserve. That is Putin’s profit, and people here deserve it to help them through the hard times that we are going through because we are imposing sanctions. Sanctions, of course, take time; the IMF says that sanctions will cut the Russian economy by 8.5%, but they will not stop a Russian tank. The war needs to be won to sort the situation out, but that is another story.
We certainly need to increase productivity, but the reality is that the Chancellor’s ambition is to bring investment per child in education by 2024 up to Labour’s 2010 levels. Our young people need to be invested in now.
There is talk of everyone having to go back to the office. Indeed, the Minister—that man sitting on the Front Bench—has said, “We have all got to go back to work in the traditional way.” However, a study by the Office for National Statistics shows that there would be a considerable increase in productivity and a delay in retirements if people were allowed to work from home. In particular, women, carers and people looking after families could work flexibly. Furthermore, people being at home for one day in five would take 20% of the traffic and 80% of the congestion off the roads, so we would spend less on roads and it would be carbon-friendly.
This whole approach to productivity, green investment, and cognisance of those matters, is completely ridiculous. Macron, along with Italy and Germany, has asked why we cannot take a more collaborative approach to trade with Britain—and, indeed, bring in Ukraine, because it shares the same values. All we are doing is starting a trade war on the back of the very sensible arrangement that Ireland should be in the single market to protect it. That is what the Government agreed and that is what should continue to operate.
Apart from the economic catastrophe, to which there is a clear solution, I fear that there are attacks on the fundamental rights of democracy. The Queen’s Speech contains all this stuff about reducing the power of an independent judiciary. Obviously the Government are very angry with Miller because the judiciary in that case gave us a vote on the Brexit deal, and they are very angry with the judiciary for allowing democracy to be reconvened after the Prime Minister had tried to abandon it for a long period. The composition of the Supreme Court has been changed and seven of its key decisions have been reversed. It has been intimidated by the media, and by Ministers sitting there slagging it off—particularly, the Lord Chancellor who is supposed to defend it. The average tenure of a Lord Chancellor is now one and a half years; it used to be four years. The Lord Chancellor used to be a senior judge, or a member of the judiciary who was respected, rather than someone who just wants to proceed to the next ministerial position. Our independent judiciary is under attack, our rights are under attack, and our democracy is under attack.
I respect what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) said about the rolling authoritarianism that we see in the contexts of poverty, the economy, and the democracy that we fundamentally are. We are better than this. We deserve better than this. We do not want low growth, large cuts and low wages; we want high growth, and a fairer and stronger economy in the future. Let us roll forward and deliver that—with a Labour Government.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
In respect of what the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said about democracy, one would think that in the current circumstances we would be incredibly careful. We cherish our democracy in this country. Our institutions are strong. Democracy, freedom and the rule of law run through the core of this country, and hearing him observe so flippantly that democracy is under attack, or, earlier, hearing the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) suggest that we are descending into something close to fascism—only seconds after saying that words matter—is extremely frustrating.
Mark Fletcher
I am afraid the hon. Lady did not give way to me, so I am going to return the favour.
The Queen’s Speech set out some of the things that we have needed to do for a long time for the purpose of economic growth. I am thinking particularly of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which offers several solutions for Bolsover, Derbyshire, and the east midlands in general. That part of the country has struggled since its former industry, coalmining, has diminished. What we have needed for a long time is a new economic settlement. Behind the figures relating to our local economy we see a great many low-skilled and low-wage jobs, and we are not reaching the potential that we have as a region. According to one of the most indicative statistics, the investment going into the east midlands, whether private or public, is much lower than the investment going into other regions.
One option that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill presents us with is a devolution settlement. Over the last two years in this Parliament, I have been lucky enough to be Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and I have had insights into how various colleagues engage with Ministers here. One of the most striking things has been that regional Mayors work. They work as a way in which the private sector and the Government can engage with a particular area and help to bring investment, jobs, skills and education to it.
Unfortunately, the east midlands is fighting with one hand tied behind its back when it comes to competing with London, Manchester, the west midlands, South Yorkshire and Teesside. It is undoubtedly true that the Mayors of those areas are having a huge impact; they are becoming household names across the country. Anyone who wants to invest in the east midlands will have to speak to at least one county council, at least one district council and almost certainly the local enterprise partnership, which becomes cumbersome. Anyone who wants to invest in the west midlands can ring Andy Street’s office, and that is a much easier process. Andy Street can then pick up the phone and talk to whoever he needs to talk to. Within this Queen’s Speech and this Bill, we can find various ways for powers to descend to our regions, and that will empower us to create more economic growth locally.
Another thing that I am pleased to see in the Queen’s Speech, again in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, relates to planning. For too long, there has been frustration that when housing comes to Bolsover, either it is through a salami-slicing approach of adding five or six houses to a village or it is a huge new estate that does not get the investment in the public services that need to come with it, such as a GP surgery or local school. We have a problem in that demand for those public services has gone up. The outline for the planning reforms is very strong, and if we are looking at levelling up an area such as Bolsover, we need to improve education and skills levels. We need to be able to bring skilled jobs to the area; we need affordable, quality housing; and we need to be able to bring in infrastructure that is fit for the 21st century.
There is an admirable line on public transport, which is that the Government would like to get the rest of the country’s transport connectivity much closer to the standard of London’s. I do not expect Bolsover to get an underground system any time soon, but I suggest to the Transport Secretary that we would accept just a few new bus routes that actually work and that run beyond 7 o’clock in the evening. I admire the emphasis on ensuring that we have public transport, because the groups most impacted by a lack of it are the elderly, students and younger people, and those on low incomes. It is hard to generate economic growth without good public transport.
I am looking forward tremendously to the Schools Bill, because there are many positive things in it, but one of my great frustrations is that we have no post-16 education in Bolsover. That requires everybody to travel out, but our bus services are not fit for purpose.
I will end on this, Madam Deputy Speaker, because unlike some others, I will stick to six minutes. I very much welcome the conversion therapy Bill. The Government will know that I think it needs to go further, and I hope that that will happen. A number of colleagues have fought incredibly hard to ensure that this issue remains on the agenda, and I doff my cap to them because this is incredibly important and something that we should put an end to in the 21st century.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Queen’s Speech presents the Government of the day with an opportunity to stand back, take stock and realign their priorities. There are aspects of the new legislative programme that are welcome, and aspects that are less so. Most concerning are the things that are missing from it altogether. I will start with levelling up. Regardless of any personal views we might hold about the intricacies of the agenda or how it is implemented, I am sure that most of us would agree that the principle of targeted and meaningful local investment is not a bad thing. Each one of us could point to projects in our constituency that not only deserve such investment but would return it tenfold.
There is an enormous patch of derelict land at Shawfield in my constituency that had been vacant for decades. Opportunity was wasted because the land suffered from the big problem that, until recent years, nobody had the patience or the vision to invest the time and money to fix its contamination with hexavalent chromium, a carcinogenic chemical—anyone who has seen the movie “Erin Brockovich” will know how dangerous it is.
Remediating the site will cost tens of millions of pounds. Clyde Gateway, a publicly backed community regeneration project that reinvests its profits in new projects, has taken on this mammoth task. It has already remediated huge amounts of land, but the majority of the site is still unusable. The location is perfect, and Clyde Gateway has already proved with its redevelopment of remediated land that it is profitable. The site would serve as an excellent hub outside the Glasgow city centre boundary for businesses and residents alike. I have even heard rumours that the Cabinet Office has looked at some of the remediated land to house its offices.
The project is a no-brainer, and I hope it is successful in bidding for the levelling-up fund. It will transform the local economy, but it needs vision and funding. Through my extensive conversations with the executive director of Clyde Gateway over the years, I have found that funding streams such as the levelling-up pot pose their own challenges. Although it is vital to ensure that public money is not frittered away, being too prescriptive stifles the ability to access and use the money to its fullest potential. I encourage the Government to consider how different project types, such as Shawfield, might be even more successful and economically beneficial to communities if their funding streams have more flexible criteria. Of course, the most important thing is to make sure that the levelling-up fund is distributed equitably across the four nations to projects that will bring the most economic value.
I am glad to see the Government finally bring forward plans for community access to cash, an issue on which I have bored Treasury Ministers to tears, as the most vulnerable in our communities are the most reliant on physical cash. Although we have accelerated our progress towards low reliance on cash over the past two years, it remains essential to protect cash and restore ease of access.
I look forward to the proposals on the sustainability of the ATM system, making sure all ATMs are free to customers without risking the affordability of maintenance for providers. I am also interested to see more of the measures on consumer rights and protections and the economic crime Bill, which is increasingly crucial at a time when people have less, if any, disposable income.
I spoke last week about Safe Hands funeral plans and the devastating impact of the company’s collapse on victims who face losing thousands of pounds they simply cannot afford to lose. I agree that strengthening this area of our statute book is essential. We need strong reform of limited partnerships and the role of Companies House, although I reserve judgment on the efficacy of the Government’s proposals until the details become clearer.
I am also eager to see the energy security Bill. It is high time—to be honest, it is too late—that the Government addressed the price crisis that is hitting households so hard. Over the past few months, this issue has been high on the list of reasons for constituents to seek support from my office. It has been so frustrating to see the Government offer so little to help the millions who are struggling to keep up. It is not just households, either: there is currently no price cap for businesses, and smaller businesses are finding themselves at real financial risk. The Government advertise themselves as the party of business, so they must do more to back up that claim.
There are quite a few Bills that we need to see in detail as soon as possible, including the Brexit freedoms Bill to address retained EU law, the Bill of Rights and the national security Bill.
I said I would return to the things that are missing from the Queen’s Speech, and I will focus on a big one. This year’s Queen’s Speech skirted neatly around the very large elephant in the room—an elephant that, for some reason, the Government are determined to ignore. At the very least, they do not want to make eye contact with it, perhaps because they know that, at the end of the day, they can leave the metaphorical room. Everyone else though—our constituents, the taxpayers and voters—is stuck in that room, eye to eye with the elephant, every single day. The room gets tighter, conditions worsen and the walls are constantly closing in. There is no sunlight and, seemingly, no escape. The Government failed to adequately account for the single biggest, most immediate and pressing crisis this country is facing: the cost of living. We are all acutely aware of it, and colleagues on Benches across the House will agree that we are fortunate that we do not feel it in quite the same way as many of our constituents do. The only way to achieve economic growth is to invest in our people. The Government are not doing enough of that, and that is incredibly short sighted.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, which has ranged over the entire Queen’s Speech in the past four hours. It has been interesting to hear Opposition Members make the case both for tax rises and for tax cuts, and I enjoyed the case made on the lack of desirability of economic growth. I am in the camp where economic growth is largely a good thing, although this is not without some reservations in certain circumstances.
I serve on the Treasury Committee, where we take evidence from a range of different economists the whole time. The good news is that the UK economy is fundamentally strong. However, we have had too low growth for too long, and we are facing unprecedented challenges, as many people have mentioned. We have had a pandemic and a war, and before that we had a global financial crisis. Someone described the Chancellor as the “unlucky Chancellor” and that is absolutely true, as he has faced greater challenges than any Chancellor since probably the second world war, but he has dealt admirably with the challenges thrown at him. We have inflation at a 40-year high, which is causing a lot of challenges to a lot of households, as we have been hearing this afternoon. But that it not purely a UK thing; it is a global inflation crisis.
I wish to put on record my continued support for Bank of England independence. The Governor of the Bank of England appeared before the Treasury Committee earlier this week, and various media reports questioned that independence, saying, “This shows that the Bank of England cannot be trusted with inflation.” That is not true. Monetary policy was never suited to and never aimed at dealing with the current global supply shock—it is not the right tool. That does not mean that the system we have for the Bank of England is not working. It has worked very well over the past 25 years and the way to judge it is whether it brings inflation back in the next year or two to the 2%.
One mystery in economics at the moment, as we find in our Treasury Committee hearings, is how well the economy is going. Two years ago, when the pandemic started, we had all these apocalyptic—that word has come back into fashion—forecasts about the economy and how we were going to have the deepest recession ever, and that unemployment would go back up to 1980s levels of 3 million or so. As various Members have mentioned, however, unemployment is now at a historic low—it is at its lowest since 1974. For the first time ever, we have more vacancies than people who are unemployed and claiming benefit. We need to work hard to make sure that those unemployed people get into those vacancies. Obviously, we still have a big budget deficit, but that is getting managed down, and taxes are heading up. I am with my right hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on the case they made that taxes are too high and should come down. That must be the medium-term trajectory.
A lot of this afternoon’s debate has been about the cost of living. I do not want to reiterate a lot of the points that have been made, so I will focus on the title of the debate, “Achieving economic growth”. There are reasons for that; a lot of the problems we face as a country could be solved by higher economic growth. It leads to higher incomes, which helps with the cost of living, and to higher tax receipts, which helps with funding tax cuts. That is why I welcome the Government’s drive to promote economic growth. I keep saying that their priority should be, “Growth, growth, growth”. The Chief Secretary highlighted the Government’s strategy of improving skills, infrastructure and innovation, and I fully support that. Obviously, many of the measures needed to promote economic growth are fiscal—they are related to taxes—and are reserved for a Budget rather than a Queen’s Speech. For example, in the spring statement the Government outlined their ambition to use tax cuts to promote business investment. Those measures will be enacted in the autumn Budget, which is welcome.
Many measures in the Gracious Speech will drive up national productivity in the medium or longer term. The education reforms and investment in skills that others have talked about, the transport improvements, and the reforms to the planning system will all help to promote economic growth. I want to focus, though, on the Bills that are aimed directly at businesses, about which not many people have talked. There are 38 Bills in the Queen’s Speech and many of them relate directly to businesses or specific industries.
The digital markets, competition and consumer Bill is most welcome. The almost duopolistic grip of Google and Facebook on electronic advertising is not good for businesses, competition, innovation or consumers. Google frequently reforms its algorithms in ways that are detrimental to ordinary businesses that rely on online advertising. They are forced to pay for expensive adverts if they want to reach their customers. Google also sets itself up in competition with businesses in a way that shows a clear conflict of interest and that damages innovation. For example, Google directs those who search “cheap flights to New York” to its own flight-comparison service rather than to independent companies such as Skyscanner or Expedia.
The Government are absolutely right to give the Competition and Markets Authority powers to protect consumers, ensure the integrity of digital markets and stop market abuse by dominant players. It is, though, a fiendishly complex policy area, and the law will work only if the new digital markets unit in the CMA is properly funded and can offer competitive salaries for highly skilled staff, so that they are not immediately poached by industry—in the same way that the Financial Conduct Authority can offer sufficient pay to make sure its staff are not lured away by the City.
The UK Infrastructure Bank Bill is long overdue. I used to work at Morgan Stanley investment bank, which does a lot of infrastructure finance, and not only is it often very complex, but there are limits to the risks that any private bank can take on in respect of massive projects. The power of the state is needed to arrange suitable financing. When I worked at City Hall in London, I was involved in sorting out the finance for Crossrail—or the Elizabeth line, as it is now known—and I really look forward to riding it next week. London was lucky to have the highly skilled finance team at Transport for London to help to arrange the financing for that £20 billion project, but most infrastructure projects do not come with such pre-formed finance teams. We need to leverage different forms of finance, including by attracting private investment, and there is a clearly defined role for the UK Infrastructure Bank, but, as with the digital markets unit and Bill, the proof will be in the delivery. It is essential not only that the UK Infrastructure Bank can operate independently from political pressures, but that it is funded so that it can attract high-quality staff.
On the non-domestic rating Bill, the business rates system is a massive source of complaints—often justified—from businesses and needs to be modernised. The Bill will do that, but let me float one little thought. A cap on business rates of 10% of a company’s declared turnover would help start-up companies and a lot of smaller businesses without damaging the revenue received from larger companies. I am sure the devil will be in the details, but it is worth the Treasury considering that.
On the genetic technology Bill, such technology is very big in my constituency—I probably have more genetic and genomic companies locally than any other constituency. The Bill is a huge opportunity for us, and it is quite possibly a Brexit opportunity, too. It is about not genetically modified organisms but gene editing, which is very different. It is about speeding up the breeding that happens naturally.
We should have introduced an electronic trade documents Bill before. I cannot believe it requires legislation, but it will slip through Parliament quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) mentioned the audit reform Bill—I think he has been the only one to do so. Everyone in finance knows that there is a major problem with auditing. It has always been in the “too difficult” box, the “too complex” box or the “I just don’t understand it” box. Thank God it is now being addressed, because we need that Bill to stop the series of scandals that have happened as a result of bad auditing.
On the Procurement Bill, I was heavily involved in procurement when I worked at City Hall, and the EU rules on public sector procurement that we inherited were horrendously over-engineered to stop abuse across 28 different countries with 28 different procurement cultures and so on. They are a severe constraint on an effective and efficient public sector—often, the Government cannot deliver what they want because of procurement rules—and we absolutely need to streamline them.
Finally, the financial services and markets Bill is a huge piece of legislation. We have looked at it a lot in the Treasury Committee, and I look forward to taking part in the debates on it when it comes to the House. It is the UK’s dirty secret that we had far more influence on the EU’s financial services legislation than any other EU member. That legislation is therefore not that bad overall, but compromises were often made, which meant that in a lot of ways it is not appropriate for a global financial centre such as the UK. We can make many reforms to it that will help our global competitiveness.
There are real issues for Parliament here. It is right to give regulators more powers, absolutely, rather than relying on everything being in primary and statutory legislation, but that means that regulators must have more effective scrutiny. Parliament is not currently set up to do that, and we need to agree on how we can more effectively hold financial regulators to account.
Overall, the Queen’s Speech has a very wide package of measures to promote business, help consumers and drive up economic growth, and I strongly recommend it to the House.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Today, I wish to focus on three key issues. The first is the cost of living crisis, which is the No. 1 issue facing the country. My constituents in Coventry North West have suffered months of sky-rocketing fuel bills, soaring inflation and hikes at the petrol pump. Sadly, this has been met by a carefree response from this Conservative Government whose policies are pushing many below the poverty line.
The crisis has been hitting my constituents hard since last summer, yet the Government are still not adequately supporting them. When I surveyed hundreds of my constituents recently, a massive 88% said that they did not expect their income to keep up with rising energy bills. Despite that, none of the 38 Bills outlined in the Queen’s Speech offered any specific or effective measures to tackle the cost of living crisis. That is why the Government must accept Labour’s plan to introduce a windfall tax on gas and oil companies that have reported record profits, and that would go a long way to providing a cut to energy bills of up to £600 per household. The Government must finally wake up to the urgency of the crisis on the ground.
Secondly, I wish to speak about planning rules and new housing developments, and the impact that they are having on certain communities. Across the communities of Holbrook, Allesley, Keresley, and Eastern Green in my constituency of Coventry North West, many of my constituents have real and heartfelt anxieties about the impact of large-scale new development and its devastating impact on greenbelt land.
For years now, I have heard constituents warning that the current planning rules are not fit for purpose. They say that they currently serve developers’ greed and do nothing to address the needs of local people and those who are most impacted. In Coventry, this means that the wrong type of houses are being built. They are built in the wrong part of the city and, eventually, are sold at an unaffordable price. From start to finish, the system is a mess and it is broken. Tens of thousands of new homes have been imposed on my city of Coventry in recent years, against the wishes of residents and their elected councillors.
Equally, the rules concerning new developments do nothing to guarantee that new homes will come with the necessary added infrastructure. That means that large-scale housing developments are being built without the necessary infrastructure, such as decent public transport, good-quality broadband connectivity, improved roads, green spaces, and extra local services, such as schools and GP surgeries.
What we have heard so far from the Queen’s Speech goes nowhere near reaching the key issues affecting my constituents. What we have are mere gestures towards a more democratic planning system, which will not fix the problems in Coventry or elsewhere across the country.
My final issue concerns healthcare and the future of our beloved NHS. Our NHS is struggling to keep up with increased and more complex demands, and it is finding it increasingly difficult to clear the backlog created by the pandemic. Let us look at our ambulance service as an example. In the west midlands, ambulance services are receiving more 999 calls than at any time in history, and yet, simultaneously, our region is facing crippling ambulance shortages. In my own city of Coventry, just days ago, a woman suffering from a heart attack had to wait two-and-a-half hours for the ambulance to show up. That is heartbreaking and it cannot go on. However, this is only part of the problem. Health services in the community are at breaking point following the failure of successive Conservative Governments to recruit more GPs and to roll out additional GP surgeries. Every morning, dozens of my constituents have to wait on the phone line, often for up to an hour, just to try to book an appointment with their GP. Too often, when they finally get through to somebody at their surgery, they find that all the appointments are booked up or that the next available appointment is not for weeks.
Frustratingly, although the Government have already admitted that they will fail to fulfil their pledge to recruit 6,000 extra GPs by 2024, and although those shortages are making life exceedingly difficult for many of my constituents, there was nothing announced in the Queen’s Speech to tackle this health crisis. Labour, however, has a very clear plan. We would make reducing waiting times and boosting staffing numbers in our NHS a top priority in government. Until this Government understand its importance, the problem will not go away.
One subject that was outlined in Queen’s Speech was women’s health, but, like so many other critical issues, it got empty words and no concrete promises. Many women continue to face appalling healthcare inequalities. For example, more than half a million women face horrendously long waiting times for gynaecology care.
The Government have repeatedly promised to prioritise addressing women’s health issues with a long-awaited women’s health strategy. However, they have failed again and again to deliver that strategy. It was meant to be delivered by Christmas last year, but that never happened, and we are still waiting for it five months later. If the Government genuinely want to do right by women’s health, they must urgently publish a comprehensive and intersectional women’s health strategy. Until then, they will continue to fail in their duty to provide world-class healthcare to every woman in this country.
This Tory Government have been in power for over 12 years now, and they appear to have entirely run out of energy and ideas. Whether on the cost of living crisis, housing or healthcare, the Government are first to deliver a soundbite, but last to deliver the lasting changes that the people of this country need. This Queen’s Speech should have been the opportunity to address some of the many complex challenges that we face. Instead, it was yet another demonstration of the Government’s disinterest in delivering for my constituents in Coventry North West. They, and the people of this country, deserve so much better.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The wind-ups will start no later than 6.30 pm, so six minutes, please. I am not imposing the time limit, but you will be really unfair to whoever is coming last if you do more.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi). She made a typically punchy and political speech with much to disagree on.
I do agree with the hon. Member on her diagnosis of the current issues with the planning system. There the agreement stops, however, because I am optimistic about the solutions proposed to democratise the system and make planning fairer and more transparent. There is much more work to do getting stuck into the detail, but optimism trumps pessimism on this account.
Planning and development is not the only challenge this country faces, of course. We have dealt with many challenges—the biggest challenges facing our country in living memory—and it has been the innovation of our people, our Government and our businesses that has got us through it. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who is not in his place now, pointed out earlier that private sector innovation is key to unlocking economic growth, the subject of this debate. Government innovation also helped us to get through the crisis. Both the unprecedented furlough scheme and the brilliant kickstart scheme, put together in a targeted, interventionist way, have helped us to become the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and to build back better.
I am glad to see that this innovative thinking has continued through Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. Importantly, that innovation will drive up skills and economic growth in my Milton Keynes North constituency, truly putting us on the map as the Silicon Valley of Europe. I understand that that is a bold claim to make: how can we compete with the tech giants of the United States? However, it would be unwise to underestimate the people and the businesses of Milton Keynes. In Milton Keynes we have a proud record of harnessing innovation, entrepreneurialism and creativity to tackle the challenges of the modern world.
We are home to many exciting technological innovations such as driverless car trials. We therefore welcome the transport Bill and the unashamedly pro-technology approach that the Government are taking. The transport Bill will truly revolutionise the way we travel, bringing the benefits to the environment and to people. For those who are vulnerable in our communities—who struggle with mobility or their sight—self-driving vehicles will be transformative, connecting them to the outside world and ensuring their independence. With the UK market set to be worth about £41 billion by 2030—that is 6.4% of the global market, so we can have a bigger slice of that pie—it is vital that the United Kingdom leads the way in the development of this technology. The transport Bill will be the first step to doing that.
But if we are truly to look towards the future, I hope that the Bill can go further. Those who have visited Milton Keynes, or indeed heard me bang on about Milton Keynes in the past few years, will have seen or heard of our much-loved Starship robots buzzing along our streets delivering our groceries—food, coffees, and even beers to a barbecue, if you happen to run out of beers, as in my experience. They may be small in stature but they are mighty in the positive impact that that they have. They have not only supported local business but helped to solve the problems of the last mile of delivery—the most expensive and carbon-intensive part of the supply chain. These robots have helped to remove nearly 400,000 kg of carbon from the atmosphere and have taken over three quarters of a million miles of car journeys off the roads in Milton Keynes. I encourage the Minister to ensure that the scope of the transport Bill supports and enables the expansion of companies such as Starship, bringing us closer to our net zero targets and our ambition to embrace the technologies of the future.
Yet if we hope to see this technology in action and being a success, we need to ensure that we have the skills and jobs to sustain it. The best way to do this is through investing in and levelling up our education. Whether through the Schools Bill or through the lifetime skills guarantee, this Government are providing people of all ages and backgrounds with the right opportunities to succeed. While it is right that we provide those opportunities, I urge the Government also to consider investing in the institutions that will be able to deliver the teaching of these vital skills. We need to teach the skills for the jobs that we cannot even conceive of yet. Those institutions include Milton Keynes University—a pioneer in the education field. MKU represents a new approach to higher education that is designed with business and for business to give students the skills and knowledge they need to meet the needs of our local economy, both now and in future. Degree apprenticeships in robot engineering or cyber-security may seem alien now to some of us in this House, but these graduates will be leading the charge in future years. With that in mind, I implore colleagues in the Treasury to consider the case for MKU more thoroughly, as it will transform our economy at both a local and a national level.
I truly feel that this will be a critical year for Milton Keynes, as we are expected to have one of the UK’s fastest-growing economies over the next two years, but to maximise that growth, we must invest in the skills, technologies and institutions of the future.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in my first Queen’s Speech debate.
The Prime Minister likes to pose as a man of action, but where in this Queen’s Speech is the bold and transformational action needed to tackle the most pressing and urgent crisis facing people across the country—the cost of living, as we have heard many times over the past few days? Families in my constituency do not want vague promises of help to come some time, maybe. They do not want to be patronised and told that things will be better in a few years’ time. They need an emergency Budget now, with immediate help to reduce their bills along with a plan for growth that offers them financial security for the long term. People struggling day to day and week to week are being let down by a Government presiding over a low-growth, high-inflation, high-tax economy. The Government talk about levelling up, but in reality they are hammering our communities down with an ever greater financial burden that shows no sign of easing.
Hardly a day goes by without one Minister or another on our TV screens showing just how out of touch they are with the people of this country. People are facing real hardship, unable to pay bills, skipping meals, turning the heating off and relying on food banks to survive, all of which are taking a real toll on their mental health. I have been contacted by suicide prevention organisations in my constituency that are busier than ever. Indeed, I have just been to a powerful event with Mr Speaker and the brilliant band New Order, organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), as today is the 42nd anniversary of the tragic suicide of Ian Curtis.
What do Ministers say to people who are struggling? They say, “Try and get a different job”, or “Work more hours”, or “Eat own brand food”. Unpaid carers and people on fixed-term pensions cannot change jobs or do an extra shift. The Government add insult to injury by writing off £11.8 billion in fraud and error. It was their error, not that of our constituents. It is insulting, it exposes their own inaction, and it shows their total inability as a Government to put in place an economic plan that can work for all the people
of this country.
While the poorest households are being hit hardest, many families who until recently thought they were reasonably secure now also feel incredibly vulnerable. A serving police officer in my constituency got in touch with me recently. He is on a decent wage, but due to the huge increases in his essential outgoings, by the end of the month he faces the prospect of not being able to afford to put petrol in his car. He searches the aisles of the supermarket for yellow-stickered discounted food for his kids, and they share bathwater to cut down on costs. When he gets to work, he sees the wider impact of the crisis with the soaring number of emergency mental health incidents he has to attend, and he is not alone.
A family of four with both parents in full-time employment emailed me, scared for their future. They are struggling, and through no fault of their own, they are relying on credit cards and facing a battle just to reach payday. What hope are we offering them and their kids? There is nothing today, and they face the prospect of their already tight family budget being stretched to breaking point by inflation and wages failing to keep up with rising prices.
On the Opposition Benches, we believe in putting in place the urgent steps needed to provide an economy that allows the benefits of higher growth and investment to be shared by all, and not just the privileged, and an economy based on fair taxation, where loopholes are closed, and those who make huge profits while their customers are hit with ever higher bills—such as the producers of North sea oil and gas—are asked to contribute more, which is something they themselves say they are ready to do. I am not anti-business—far from it—but we need a fairer economy that brings good jobs into our communities and puts pride back into our towns, but this Queen’s Speech did not provide the vision, the ambition or the foundations for an economy that will work for the people of Batley and Spen and the people of this country.
I will always try to be fair to Ministers, although they do not always make it easy. There were Bills in this Queen’s Speech that address some important issues, such as online safety, victims, schools and mental health, and I look forward to debating them in this Chamber, but until we address the most pressing issue of the day—the highest inflation and greatest pressure on living standards in a generation—we are letting down our constituents when they need us most and widening the economic gaps that are holding our communities back. That is why I am calling on the Government to take some action, show some urgency and show some compassion to tackle the very real cost of living crisis that so many of our constituents are facing.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate this afternoon and to follow the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater). I will reserve my comments on achieving economic growth to the rural areas of the United Kingdom. I particularly advocate for my constituency of West Dorset.
The Queen’s Speech contained a number of welcome Bills, including the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, the transport Bill, the Procurement Bill and, importantly, the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill.
West Dorset is a very rural constituency, covering 400 square miles. Thirty per cent. of the population is over 65 and one in 12 is over 80. Eighty-five per cent. of all our funding comes from local taxation, and two thirds of our council tax goes to support those needing social care. It is constituencies such as mine that have a really strong requirement for regeneration and levelling up in a way that sometimes this House does not quite recognise. The default view of West Dorset is that it is a particularly well-off place, but I can tell the House that many parts are far from it. West Dorset is in as much need as anywhere of levelling up, especially as we are one of the few authorities to have zero revenue support grant, despite having one of the highest council tax rates in the country.
I am particularly pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Brexit Opportunities is on the Treasury Bench this afternoon. I was delighted to welcome him to West Dorset just a few weeks ago to talk about some of the challenges and difficulties we face. In West Dorset, 97% of our businesses are small or micro-sized. The pandemic was very harsh to us: 6,500 very small businesses existed before the pandemic; 5,500 are there now. So I was delighted to learn from my right hon. Friend that the procurement Bill will help those very small and micro-sized businesses to tap into the procurement system. For far too long, those businesses have been held back from accessing that system because of bureaucracy or European rules and legislation. Such things as approved suppliers lists will, I understand, be reviewed. I think that will mean an enormous amount to constituencies such as mine, with such a high proportion of small and micro-sized businesses.
Many in this House know that, for 20 years before I was elected in 2019, I worked for the railways. That is one of the reasons I am delighted to see the transport Bill feature in the Queen’s Speech. Bus and rail services have also been a contentious matter in West Dorset. I have the worst frequency rail line in the country—a three-hourly train frequency—that many often do not recognise. Inter-regional rail connectivity is also very poor, which is another reason I am delighted that we will have a transport Bill that will reform the railways and bring lots of opportunity and in particular take full advantage of regional connectivity, meaning that, where we see franchise boundaries precluding sensible cross-regional connectivity measures, we will have the opportunity to fully review those.
West Dorset is a very agricultural area as well. Agriculture plays an enormous part in the local economy. For that reason, and as a farmer’s son, I am delighted to see that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill will be coming back in this parliamentary Session. It contains a lot of important measures that I would have liked us to have dealt with before, but I am pleased that it is to come back. Animal worrying is a considerable problem for our sheep farmers in and around West Dorset, and the Bill will put the responsibility on dog owners to keep their dogs under control. I hope that, during our debates on the Bill, we will also discuss the unnecessary non-stun slaughter of animals for supply chain purposes.
I am delighted to be able to support the Queen’s Speech. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Brexit Opportunities is present to hear my points and to reiterate the conversation we had when he visited West Dorset. I commend the Queen’s Speech to the House.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Like the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), this is my first Queen’s Speech debate. For a Queen’s Speech delivered during a cost of living crisis, this year’s address was regrettably notable for its lack of urgency or solutions. As we have all been hearing, inflation is now at 9%—the highest in over 40 years—and people are struggling to imagine how they can make ends meet, let alone make it. The notion that people can solve the crisis by taking cookery classes or working longer hours is as tone deaf as it is offensive.
The Government talk a lot about levelling up, but in my constituency we see vital local services disappearing before our eyes. I could talk about the loss of multiple bank branches locally, or about protracted postal delays due to Ofcom’s failure to hold Royal Mail to its universal service requirements, but as I only have a short amount of time, I will focus my remarks on questions that cannot afford to be ignored.
With their commitment to making streets safer, I had hoped that the Government would pay some attention to local policing. They talk a good game about their commitment to recruit extra police officers, yet in our local force—Thames Valley police—we were promised an additional 609 officers by the end of May 2023; instead, they were down 29 officers in 2021. This is why I was particularly disappointed to hear that, rather than focusing on provision to improve local policing, the Home Office plans to spend this parliamentary Session attempting to force through draconian legislation that was so recently rejected during consideration of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
On future development, my constituents made no secret of their distaste for the Government’s previous planning White Paper. As such, I am glad that the Government appear to have heard the voices of the people of Chesham and Amersham and dropped those proposals. Having been made to think again, the Government are now looking to give communities more say over developments in their area. I only hope that the results live up to the billing.
I am pleased to see that there will be more emphasis on environmental considerations within that legislation. Without a doubt, the planning system plays a big part in protecting our natural environment. However, I am disappointed at the lack of stand-alone environmental legislation. In the UK, some areas of outstanding natural beauty are in decline, yet we are continuing to destroy unique and precious habitats, ancient woodlands and globally scarce chalk streams in my constituency alone. If we are to halt this decline and protect our environment for future generations, we need specific protections to do so. I have previously suggested a special designation and enhanced protection for chalk streams, and I again urge the Government to consider that.
Finally, on transport, the Government have committed to improve reliability for passengers, but I am sure fellow Buckinghamshire Members will share my disappointment that our local council received no funding for bus service improvement plans. I ask the Government what their plan is to improve transport connectivity in regions such as ours which were overlooked. The neglect of Chesham and Amersham’s transport services is particularly ironic given that our community is obliged to watch as ever-increasing amounts of money are poured into the HS2 project, which brings nothing to our area but pollution, congestion and destruction. The Government’s blinkered approach means they are simply ploughing on ahead, despite spiralling costs and an environmental impact far greater than estimated. I urge the Government, before the High Speed Rail (Crewe—Manchester) Bill is brought before this place, to please pause, assess the damage already done and undertake a fresh cost-benefit analysis of the project that takes into consideration the many changes that have occurred since hon. Members regrettably consented to it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That was well within six minutes—well done.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I rise to support the Queen’s Speech, its 38 Bills and its broad legislative agenda. I thought the opening paragraph of my speech would not be too disagreeable, but after listening to some of the comments this afternoon, I still firmly believe that efficiently managing our economy and stimulating growth is absolutely a key priority that this Government should be helping us through, in what will undoubtedly be one of the most challenging scenarios of the last 75 years.
I think we are all in absolutely no doubt about the challenges ahead, but rather than dwell on those challenges, what we need to be doing when we debate achieving economic growth is talking about confidence—confidence in our economy and confidence in our businesses—because that is what they absolutely need. As constituency MPs, we have a fundamental duty, I feel, to be talking about confidence in our own representative communities, including confidence to invest and confidence to recruit into a market where opportunities are plentiful. We have heard many times this afternoon that we have more jobs than we have ever had before for people. We have the lowest unemployment since the 1970s. We have to have the confidence that people can go out there and that businesses can match them with the skills they are looking for. Then we will drive the growth agenda that we need. That is what is expected, and what is indeed happening, in my rural constituency of North Norfolk.
Rather like with buses, Mr Deputy Speaker, you sit here for nearly five hours and nobody talks about the rural economy, and then my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) comes along—not that I would ever liken him to a bus. When we stimulate local growth, we foster and support thriving communities. That does not just apply to towns and cities; it also applies to rural areas and North Norfolk is just one of those areas set to benefit. What better place can Members think of than somewhere with swathes of glorious rolling countryside, sprinkled with picturesque towns and villages? Businesses are making a significant contribution to local and national economic growth, and the east is a net contributor to the economy—to the Chancellor and the Treasury. We should not forget that.
We should also recognise that the pandemic has taught us many things. Remote working has changed everything. Places such as my beautiful constituency have never before provided the kind of work-life balance that the pandemic has opened our eyes to. It is estimated that rural businesses across the country make up 28% of England’s firms and contribute at least 19% of gross value added to the English economy. Rural areas have more business start-ups per head of population than many urban areas, and most have enormous amounts of manufacturing businesses. Those businesses can be small, medium or large, but all of them contribute immensely to the surrounding areas and the national economy.
Whenever I have talked about levelling up, I have said that we must not forget our rural areas. I want to show that there is confidence in the future, and so does a serial entrepreneur called William Sachiti, who is the real leader here—I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) has disappeared, but it is interesting that this issue has been brought up twice in the space of half an hour. William Sachiti is a tech entrepreneur who is relocating the headquarters of his robotics company, Academy of Robotics, to a former military base in my constituency in quite literally the middle of nowhere. In doing so, he is placing the vanguard of driverless vehicle technology and development in my county. Many have already described the company as the closest thing we have to Tesla in the UK.
If there is a better way of demonstrating that we can achieve economic growth through the suite of Bills in the Queens’ Speech than the businesses opening in my constituency, I do not know what it is. This business, which has already been valued at $100 million, will deliver the benefits of high-skilled jobs and bring real talent into my constituency.
I hope that goes some way towards showing how integral rural areas are to our economy. They are quite often the economic drivers of growth. As we move out of the pandemic, it is vital that we recognise that and the inherent potential of businesses in the rural economy, and realise that there are no barriers any more to where people can start a business and enable it to thrive. Just like levelling up, economic growth is not the preserve of metropolitan areas any more but for the whole country. I know that the Government will deliver on this.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
There is something liberating about coming in at nearly the end of the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. Knowing that you do not have much time to get your points across, you tend to get right to it, so I will.
I want to talk about not only economic growth, which we all understand the importance of, but the sustainability of that growth and the type of economy that it seeks to create, which is similar to what the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) was talking about earlier in the debate.
The cost of living is the order of the day, as it should be, but for all the talk of economic shocks and external factors that we cannot avoid, many of the largest price rises have come in areas where the Government on these islands have decided they no longer have a role to play, abdicating their national responsibility. I think in particular of energy storage and transportation—I say that as my attention has been to the news that Russia has decided to stop energy exports to Finland the day after it announced its intention to join NATO. That decision was met with a shrug by the Finns, who had been planning for such an eventuality and have avoided the Russian energy trap that so many other European states have sleepwalked into. Resilience is built into Finnish society, and its economy plays as much of a role in the defence of the homeland as its military. That is key to avoiding the temptation to fall back on the easy gains of what some call balance-sheet capitalism.
If the House will indulge me, I will quote a paragraph from the introduction to Brett Christophers’ excellent overview of the modern UK economy, “Rentier Capitalism”, which nicely encapsulates the quandary that this place will find itself in when trying to legislate for inclusive and sustained growth:
“A form of capitalism geared principally to doing pays heed to the balance sheet only to the extent that assets facilitate and liabilities mitigate profitable making or providing, or whatever else a business does. For a form of capitalism structured by contrast around ‘having’—rentier capitalism, in other words: a mode of economic organisation in which success is based principally on what you control, not what you do—the balance sheet is the be-all and end-all.”
In this political state, as successive Governments—blue and red—have sought to keep the City of London onside, unthinking deregulation has been the order of the day, and a rentier capitalist system has been created. That may have kept stakeholders happy, but as we stare down the barrel of massive utility price rises, I am not sure that our constituents, including mine in West Dunbartonshire, always have been. A Government who own and maintain the fundamental pieces of infrastructure that allow entrepreneurs to proliferate and thrive is one who can keep an eye on the horizon and ensure that our fundamental national interests are upheld, and the temptation to put shareholder interests ahead of citizen interests is avoided.
My contribution to this area is a paper published with Stuart Evers by the Progressive Policy Research Group last year regarding the ownership and regulation of telecoms infrastructure. As we get our head around the challenges that have been mentioned and the opportunities presented to us by the new digital economy, it is imperative that the keystone industries of the economy are kept principally in public hands, not only because extracting private rents from them is unfair but because that allows us to get back to focusing on an economy that actually does things. It will surprise no one in the House if I say that I cannot see a way in which this political state can extract itself from under the dead hand of the UK’s rentier economy, so I draw the conclusion that so many of my fellow Scots increasingly do: it is only through independence that Scotland can create an economy that is fairer for all of us, in which growth is sustainable and whose foundations are resilient enough to face the economic headwinds we are heading into. I only hope that the Government will allow us to make that decision for ourselves.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Tahir Ali will be the last Back Bencher to speak before the wind-ups, so any Member who has participated in the debate should make their way back to the Chamber for the wind-ups.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
The Queen’s Speech clearly comes from a beleaguered Government who have run out of ideas and lost the ability to show leadership in a time of acute crisis. As several of my colleagues have made abundantly clear, the lack of measures to address the cost of living is an indictment of the Government and demonstrates their complete disregard for everybody struggling and working in the UK. Inflation continues to rise, and the Bank of England is warning of an imminent recession. With wages stagnant, my constituents in Birmingham, Hall Green and consumers across the country are cutting back on spending as the cost of essentials such as energy and food skyrockets. While energy companies amass record profits, small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency, in high streets and in local centres, struggle with rising costs and less income. The cost of living crisis threatens to become a vicious cycle, whereby working people struggle to make ends meet, small and medium-sized businesses struggle to stay afloat and people’s jobs are put at risk. Rather than levelling up, this crisis threatens a downward spiral.
Bereft of ideas, the Government have not even done what they usually do and stolen Labour policies. The Government have ignored our calls for a windfall tax on oil and gas companies, as demonstrated in last night’s vote, which would help to raise significant revenue to assist those struggling to pay their energy bills. Nothing has been said about low pay and stagnant wages, nothing on how rising interest rates will increase mortgage costs and rents, nothing on the scourge of insecure work and fire and rehire, and nothing on child poverty and the staff retention crisis in our hard-hit primary and secondary schools.
The new Brexit freedoms Bill threatens to further undermine parliamentary scrutiny of important legislation —yet another attempt by this Government to avoid accountability. Where positive measures have been announced, such as ending no-fault evictions for renters, the Government have accompanied them with draconian nonsense such as criminalising the homeless for rough sleeping.
The missed opportunities do not end there. The new proposals for street votes on extensions and conservatories provide a compelling model for local democracy, but one sadly wasted on relatively minor matters. The Government have been made well aware of the problems with exempt accommodation in my city of Birmingham and in my constituency. Local people are demanding a voice in decision making on whether Government Departments establish so-called exempt accommodation in their neighbourhoods. That would be a far more suitable issue around which to develop street votes and local democracy than whether someone wants a conservatory or an extension on their street.
The real achievement of the Queen’s Speech was to use so many words to say so little of substance. The people of this country were looking to this Government to show courage and leadership at a time of great need. Instead, all they got were more missed opportunities and hot air.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a real privilege to close the final debate on the Queen’s Speech tonight after more than 30 contributions from colleagues on all sides.
I want to start with a candid admission of jealousy. Every time I see a Government present a Queen’s Speech I am envious of the right they have to lay out not just one Bill or one measure but a full, comprehensive programme, a chance to address the many issues our country faces. What an opportunity that is. For this Government, with their large majority and now in the delivery stage of this Parliament, what a moment this should be after 12 years in power. The Queen’s Speech should be the crowning glory of everything the Government are about, but can any reasonable person say that it matched that moment, that it seized the opportunities of the future?
In a list of 38 Bills, we should all be able to find one or two things we like, but can we say that it lives up to the fundamental challenges being faced in homes across the country? Like many Members today, I am moved to ask: is this really it? We selected this debate to outline a vision for the future, but the Government have quite literally sent a vision of the past. The test for the Queen’s Speech was whether it could deliver both the short-term relief and the long-term plan for growth that this country needs, but it has surely failed on both counts.
Many colleagues mentioned the news that inflation has hit a 40-year high, rising to 9%. It is the highest one-year increase in consumer prices since records began. People are grappling with impossible decisions and they are rightly looking to this place for action. The average energy bill has gone up by more than £1,000 this year. The food shop has gone up by 5%, and the Bank of England has warned of further “apocalyptic” food price rises. Putting petrol in the car has jumped up by £20 a time. Since January, 2 million people in our country have a gone a whole day without eating because they simply cannot afford to do so.
Those are not just statistics and headlines; they are about real people—our friends, neighbours and constituents. We can do something about it, because these are all symptoms of a much deeper problem. At the heart of the difficulty we face is the fact that our economy has not grown as it should have done since the Conservatives came to power. That is not a contested argument; it is a fact. Economic growth under the Conservatives has been slower than the historical average, and slower than under the last Labour Government. Sadly, this Queen’s Speech showed that the Government cannot, or will not, take the action needed to rectify that.
In contrast, our position is that our economy can and must do better. We believe that the UK needs greater investment in net zero. We believe that we need a real reform agenda on such things as business rates. We believe that we need a modern industrial strategy that provides a route for every business and worker in this country to fulfil their true potential.
That ambition, that hunger for change, was shown in my hon. Friends’ contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) talked about the urgent need to overcome the problems that UK businesses are having exporting into the single market. My hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Slough (Mr Dhesi) talked about job security being essential to wellbeing, yet the employment Bill is nowhere to be seen. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) talked of the new opportunities available to manufacturing and the need for private investment in the UK to capitalise on them. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) called for transformational, bold thinking and gave examples from her constituency about what the contemporary situation means. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), in perhaps the phrase of the debate, called this more of a “gracious intervention” than a Gracious Speech, and he is surely right.
Even among Government Members, the frustrations were evident. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) raised legitimate points about the media Bill and the creative industries. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) asked why the audit reform Bill is just in draft form when it is supposed to be a priority. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) again admirably raised points about small business lending, and he was right to do so. Lots of Government Members, including the right hon. Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), pointed out that taxes on working people are too high. They are very high under this Government.
From listening to the whole debate, it seemed to me that with the Government having had a policy to cut corporation tax, which they have now abandoned; having tried an embryonic industrial strategy, which has now been abandoned; having tried austerity, which was originally a growth policy, not just a necessity, and has since been recognised as having gone too far; and having had the super deduction, which has been and gone, there are no big ideas left on the Conservative side of the House at a time when we really need them.
The first line of the Queen’s Speech could, and should, have been: “We will introduce an emergency Budget to offer relief to families and firms struggling with the cost of living crisis.” Instead, we have the Prime Minister saying that he is neither in favour of nor against a windfall tax, and the Business Secretary saying that he is ruling it out, but that everything is still on the table; then we have the Prime Minister telling us to expect action on the cost of living soon, and the Treasury telling us to expect action on the cost of living never. The truth is that families and households across this country do not need lessons in budgeting or cookery classes. They need help dealing with challenges that are too big for individuals to have to deal with alone.
All Opposition Members are asking for is action commensurate with the scale of the challenge. That means an emergency Budget with a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas profits to cut household bills; a tax cut for small businesses, saving pubs and shops up to £5,000 this year; and a contingency fund to keep energy-intensive industries competitive, so that for instance we could keep open fertiliser factories that are currently closed, meaning that we would not see further food price inflation into next year because of inaction now. These are real proposals for real action now, because if we wait until October, and if business confidence continues to fall and inflation continues to rise, already hard decisions will become even harder.
What frustrates me is that despite all this, we are a country with such incredible potential. We have an amazing, cutting-edge business sector, with industries up and down the country. As shadow Business Secretary it is a privilege to go and see those firms for myself. In the past few months, I have had the opportunity to see electric cars being manufactured in Sunderland and green hydrogen in Sheffield. I was with a new generation of entrepreneurs at Leeds Business School last week: they were buzzing with ideas and innovations that would boost our economy.
Britain is a great country to work and do business, so why should we accept projections of weak growth and poor productivity, with ever higher taxes as a result? We know how good Britain can be, but over the past 12 years the Conservatives have failed to capture that potential, and future projections are no better. In this debate, several Conservative MPs said that international forces beyond their control, such as global commodity prices or the conflict in Ukraine, were to blame. That claim just does not stand up to scrutiny. Conservatives have been in power for 12 years. Low growth took hold long before the international events that we are concerned about, which is why the Government have had to raise taxes on working people to historic levels. The IMF says that the only country in the G20 that will grow at a slower rate than us is Russia, yet all the Government have to offer is more of the same.
The Opposition are clear that a plan for economic growth must offer good jobs—high-skill, high-wage, secure jobs across the country, jobs that people can raise their family on. Hon. Members rightly raised the absence from the Queen’s Speech of the employment Bill, which was a general election promise in 2019 and has since been promised an additional 20 times. What is it about flexible working rights, banning fire and rehire and sorting out sick pay that the Government are so afraid of? I still have not heard from anybody an explanation for why the employment Bill was not included. The treatment of people at P&O Ferries was not just a scandal; it was immoral. As a pro-business, pro-worker party, we stand proud in saying that better employment rights are a key part of our economic plan for Britain.
This country is crying out for a serious plan to break the cycle of low growth, low productivity and high taxes. We have that plan: an industrial strategy built on a partnership between employers and workers; catalytic public investment of £28 billion every year to build the industries and jobs of the future; reform of business taxation to encourage long-term, sustainable growth; increased investment in research and development; and buying, making and selling more in the UK. That is the action needed to grow our economy, drive up living standards and fund the public services that this country so desperately needs.
The Queen’s Speech just does not meet the moment. We have to ask: if this Government have so little to offer in the face of such tumultuous events, what is the point of this Government? Away from all the bluster and boosterism, the fact is that they have wasted the mandate that they received, and frankly the British people will not forgive them for it. Leadership, vision and optimism are what is required.
The opportunity to present a Queen’s Speech is an immense privilege, and the circumstances that we live in made this Queen’s Speech a particular responsibility. It required nothing less than short-term relief and hope for the future, but the Government have been unable to provide either. It is clear that this country will not get the Queen’s Speech that it really deserves until Labour has the chance to write it.
The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. I thank right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed; they made many important points, quite rightly holding the Government to account in the best traditions of this House, which made for an excellent debate to follow Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. That speech set out the Government’s plans to grow our economy, ease the cost of living and drive our levelling-up agenda.
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out earlier today the ambitious plans for accelerating economic growth in this country. I echo his comments that there are reasons to be optimistic. Last year the United Kingdom was the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Employment has fallen back to 3.7%, below pre-pandemic levels, the lowest in nearly 50 years—since, I think, before you were even born, Mr Deputy Speaker, assuming that you were not born in 1974. However, as in 1974, inflation is once more on the prowl. It is a global issue, because of wars and rumours of wars, as well as, of course, the covid pandemic. Energy prices have risen globally. Other supply chains are disrupted, and China’s biggest cities are in lockdown. Container shipping is in the wrong place in parts of the world. The monetary policy prescripts that were necessary to deal with the global financial crisis and the pandemic risk of economic inactivity have also taken their toll. All that presents challenges not just to the Government in this country, but to Governments across the world. Fortunately, this Government—Her Majesty’s Government—have plans to deal with them.
The areas under my direct responsibility are some crucial, essential, fundamental supply-side reforms in the Brexit freedoms Bill and the Procurement Bill. Those two Bills, along with a host of others in the Queen's Speech covering data reform, gene editing, future transport technology, financial services reform and more, provide exactly the sort of meaningful policy—supply-side reforms that Opposition Members always oppose because their answer is always more regulation and more interference— which will truly open up the bottlenecks in our economy and give the British people the plenty and prosperity that they deserve. Once again, it is Conservatives who are willing to make proper, long-term, well-thought-through policy decisions to the benefit of the British people.
Before I talk about the Bills in more detail, I want to refer to some of the comments that have been made during today’s excellent debate—and what a pleasure to start with the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). Her speech was a beautifully crafted and elegant audition for the leadership of the Labour party, but she has set out her stall, and having always been thought of as being quite moderate—she was, I believe, an economist for the Bank of England at one point—she is now red in tooth and claw. The prescripts of socialism came spewing forth: higher tax, higher regulation, more spending. The fuel for the inflationary fire was piled up as if she were looking for a veritable bonfire.
The hon. Member for Leeds West was only to be outdone by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), who, if the other hon. Lady was Solomon, was Rehoboam. If it was whips from the shadow Chancellor, it was scorpions from the hon. Member for Nottingham East. The scorpions of socialism have lashed this country before, and we will not be stung by their like again. But I must now move on to the very distinguished hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss).
There is a phrase that comes to mind, because the hon. Lady was looking around for something with which to attack this Government, an extraordinary thing for her to do. She found that one item, which was of course the obsession of the Scottish National party, who want to be free from the United Kingdom only to be in thrall to the yoke of Brussels. She found a few pounds that used to come from Brussels but do not come from the United Kingdom, but she forgot the £41 billion that will go from the UK taxpayer to Scotland each year for the next three years; the £170 million from the levelling-up fund for eight Scottish projects; the £52 million to support the establishment of two green freeports; the £42 million for Scottish fisheries and the £1.9 billion for farmers and land managers; and the £1.5 billion for 12 city growth deals. The hon. Lady sat there elegantly straining at a gnat, when camel after camel had been greedily swallowed by the Scottish Government previously.
Let me turn to the inspired and helpful interventions from this side of the House. I am not saying that there is a monopoly of wisdom on this side of the House, although it does sometimes look that way. We started with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who pointed out that productivity had been a challenge for this economy for some time. He is absolutely right, and that is why supply-side reforms are so important.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) mentioned shale gas. I recall an occasion when a much more distinguished speaker at this Dispatch Box decided that the argument coming from the Back Bench was so strong that he could not rise to answer it and remain within the confines of collective agreement. My more distinguished predecessor was, as it happens, Robert Peel, and the argument was over free trade. Although I was not entirely won over by my right hon. Friend’s argument, I am nonetheless glad that Her Majesty’s Government are reviewing the position on shale to ensure that we maximise safely the resources that lie under the feet of the people of this nation.
Chris Bryant
Several Members on this side and on the other side spoke today in favour of a windfall tax on windfall profits. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is wholeheartedly opposed to this socialism, so if and when the Government introduce it, will he resign?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Unfortunately, as so often, the hon. Gentleman has not been paying proper attention to the day’s debate. If he had, he might have heard an authority greater than I am answering half a dozen questions on that very issue from the Leader of the Opposition slightly earlier. The authority in Her Majesty’s Government is obviously the Prime Minister, of whom I am a humble servant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) raised the issue of disruption in supply chains. This is a fundamental problem, and until supply chains are restored, inflation is likely to be difficult. The contributions have ranged widely. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) and for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths), whom I was pleased to visit last week. We had the pleasure of going to the Elkes Biscuits factory. If you want a better biscuit, buy Elkes biscuits. They are absolutely delicious. I helped—I was not very good at helping, but I did help—and they sent me home with a packet of Bourbon creams, which have never been devoured faster than they were by my children. I thank my hon. Friend for having me on that visit.
We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who insisted that we stick to the title of the debate, which is “Achieving economic growth”. He is almost always absolutely right, but on this occasion he was particularly absolutely right. We want to stick to the issue of economic growth. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake).
I do not know whether to be delighted or somewhat miffed at my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), because in one short speech she made a point that I have been trying to make for about 20 years and she made it more pithily and better than I have ever done. She used a cricketing metaphor, which is that the Government are the groundsmen, and the most they can do is to prepare the pitch for the bowlers and batsmen—the businesses across the country who provide the economic activity. We are not the players in the game; we are the groundsmen. As I say, that is a point that I have been trying to make for a long time, and I am going to steal my hon. Friend’s pithy aphorism shamelessly. I hope that I have her permission to do so.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), and also from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), who said that growth was everything, agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) might need to contact the Boundary Commission, because during his speech he decided to rename his constituency the “Silicon Valley of Europe”. For that to be officially approved, I think it would have to go through the proper processes, but it seems to me a jolly good idea that we should have the Silicon Valley of Europe in Milton Keynes, with robots going around showing how modern and technologically sophisticated they are.
I was also delighted by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). I visited his constituency recently, and he generously provided me with the most excellent cake. Hon. and right hon. Members will think that wherever I go I am provided with confections of the most delicious kind, but that is not compulsory, and I would happily go without the cake to visit Poundbury, which is the most amazing success of planning in providing the things that people want. It is beautiful and elegant, and it achieves a density that other places do not achieve.
I also listened to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) with pleasure.
Geraint Davies
I am listening to this very amusing after-dinner speech, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the serious issue here is that, had we continued on the growth trend of the last Labour Government, people would have an extra £11,000 to work with? We have the highest tax rate since world war two, the highest inflation rate for 40 years and 2.6 million people going to food banks. Does he agree that is a complete catastrophe? He is making a big joke out of it, which shows he should not be in office.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman must think there has been a collective outbreak of amnesia not just in the House but across the nation. He seems to forget that the country was bankrupt when the coalition came to office in 2010, and it had been bankrupted by the “spend now, find the money later” approach of the socialists. Was it not Margaret Thatcher who so rightly said that, ultimately, they run out of other people’s money? They ran out of other people’s money.
Growth has been lower because of the utter irresponsibility of the socialists prior to 2010, and the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury left a little billet-doux, did he not, saying:
“I’m afraid there is no money.”
[Hon. Members: “It was 12 years ago.”] Yes, it was more than 12 years ago, but we will not let them forget because socialism always leads to economic failure. Every socialist Government there has ever been has led to economic failure, devaluation, high taxes and low economic growth, and then the Conservatives come in to clear things up.
Andrew Selous
I have not had the pleasure of visiting Poundbury, but I have visited the Prince of Wales’s other development at Nansledan near Newquay, where a wonderful, large doctors surgery is being built. Many of us have a serious issue with large new developments, as we do not have quite the same prowess at putting in general practice capacity. When my right hon. Friend is next round the Cabinet table, will he forcefully represent that point, which concerns many of us on both sides of the House?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is wise, and this is part of the reason why Poundbury has been a success, because it provides basic services, including a primary school. That is part of the planning requirement, so I agree with him very much.
I was delighted by the contribution of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), which are not words I thought I would use nor words he probably thought I would utter. I always thought he was the high priest of remain, yet I could have delivered most of his speech on the intransigence and stick-in-the-mud-iness of the European Union.
I am glad to say that, in the UK, we are being much more flexible. We are recognising that the EU has not suddenly become dangerous. We may not like the EU, we may not think it is the best construct and we may not want to belong to it, but we do not think it has suddenly become rabid. That is why I was delighted to announce in April that the remaining import controls on EU goods will no longer be introduced. This is not a delay but a change in policy, because we recognise that goods produced in other parts of the world—not just the EU—can be produced safely, and it therefore makes sense to have unilateral recognition if others will not give us mutual recognition. Between now and the end of 2023, we will look to see how far we can extend that with other friendly nations that have high standards, as it cuts costs for consumers.
The right hon. Gentleman probably has better relations with highfalutin EU figures than I do, and he may be better placed than I am to persuade them that reciprocation would be more in their interest than ours.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
On open trade, will the Minister give us some clarification on “friendly nations”? Does that include India shipping cheap Indian whisky to the UK?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This will have to be a risk-based assessment. If the hon. Gentleman can say that this whisky is dangerous or poisonous, or it is breaking a trademark—
Mr Rees-Mogg
Do we really have a Scotsman in the House who does not like his whisky to be cheap? Does he want to pay higher prices for whisky? Is he calling for this for the good people of Scotland? This is news. This is a newsflash, and I hope the PA is reporting it carefully, along with Hansard: the SNP wants higher prices for whisky. It wants higher prices for an evening tipple. I look forward to that being a good and successful slogan at the next general election: “Vote SNP for higher whisky prices”.
David Linden
Indeed, the Minister cannot. On whisky in India, can he update the House on progress towards reducing the punitive 150% tariff on Scotch whisky, which has an impact on approximately 400 jobs in my constituency?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This Government are a free-trading Government, which is why we are negotiating around the world to improve access to other markets. That is a very important part of what Her Majesty’s Government are doing.
I wish to mention briefly one of the other things that came up in debate, which was on the issue of public sector fraud.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Before the Minister moves on, will he take the opportunity to welcome from the Dispatch Box the first overseas deal that was cut between Northern Ireland and Australia? Wrightbus, in my constituency, and Volgren, in Australia, are now going to put hydrogen buses on the streets of Australia. That has come directly as a result of our new ability to cut free trade deals.
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is particularly good news. It is welcome that Northern Ireland, where there are difficulties over the protocol, is seeing genuine benefit from our free trade agreements.
I wish to make a point about fraud, which was an issue raised during the debate. Two years ago, it was of fundamental importance to get money out to businesses quickly. That was the right thing to do and it was supported across the House. It is now right to follow up to make sure that all that money was used honestly, and that if people did not use it honestly, they are subject to proper processes. So £750 million of taxpayers’ money is being committed to following up on fraud. We are setting up a public sector fraud agency and we are working with the banks, who own the loans, to ensure that the bounce back loans are repaid properly and honestly. But it was right to get the money out quickly two years ago and everybody wanted to do it.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I would correct the hon. Gentleman, as the money has not been written off. In addition, Lord Agnew has been in touch with me, and I have spoken to him and been seeking his advice on how to ensure that our anti-fraud efforts are as effective as possible. He highlighted the issue very effectively. May I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, along with the hon. Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) for theirs? In my humble opinion, they are three of the most sensible and civilised Opposition Members, but I think they decided that the Queen’s Speech was an occasion for them as it is for the heralds: they put on their tabards and their fine show in order to have a theatrical display, rather than to say something that they normally say, in well-rounded and moderated tones. All three of them went to the wildest fantasies of excessive criticism of the Government.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have already given way once. As I was saying, it was splendid but it was not really what the debate was about. I admire the heralds as well. They are a great addition to the state opening and I hope that the three of them will make this a traditional part of Queen’s Speeches in future, being able to over-egg the pudding when it comes in front of them.
I have a feeling that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the many others who are now assembling for the vote may be glad to hear that I am coming to my—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is so easy to win cheap popularity. The Government see this post-Brexit world as an historic chance to seize the opportunity for innovation and regulatory reform now that we are free of Brussels diktats. Our future is one of innovation and enterprise, spurred by competition. Following the end of the transition period and the beginning of the UK’s new trading relationship with the EU, many businesses have prepared for and adapted to the new environment. It has been a period of change made all the more extraordinary by the need to tackle a global pandemic at the same time.
The cost of business regulation is too high. Too much EU regulation has been written at the expense of consumers and entrepreneurs with new ideas. Many of the EU’s regulations—such as Solvency II or the rules on general data protection regulation—benefit big incumbents rather small competitors and deprive consumers, including Members of the House, of new technologies or better products and services.
Our future is in building on our competitive advantage as a knowledge economy. Our success will be based on the quality of our ideas, on working hard to turn those ideas into new industries, on reforming and enhancing our old ones, and on exporting those ideas. Now that we are outside the EU, we have the opportunity to think boldly, to conceive and implement rules that put the UK first, and to get rid of things—the nonsense, the folderol, the port services directive and such like—that do not help or benefit us.
We are going to have a Brexit freedoms Bill that will make it easier to get rid of bad EU law. It will be deregulatory in principle, remove the supremacy of EU law and ensure that our statute book is one of Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish law, rather than one of EU law. Even the leader of the Scottish National party in Westminster, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), is looking chirpy at the thought of having that degree of control.
Our Procurement Bill will make life easier for small businesses. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton who said in the debate that small and medium-sized enterprises are the lifeblood of our economic activity. They are the ones that create the jobs, defeat the monopolists and help to bring down prices.
Ultimately, there is a clear choice on this Queen’s Speech. It is a choice brought into sharper relief by the inflation that we currently face and a choice faced by previous generations in this House and in this country: do we wish to go down the false path of socialism? Do we want to follow the hon. Member for Leeds West with higher taxes, higher regulation and wasteful spending? Or do we want freedom and liberty and enterprise? I commend freedom, liberty and enterprise.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
UK Songwriters and Composers
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the Musicians’ Union and the Ivors Academy. I also take this opportunity to announce to the House that I was elected as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music earlier today. I look forward very much to using that platform to campaign further for our great musicians and music industry.
I am delighted to have this opportunity, ahead of the 67th annual Ivor Novello awards tomorrow, to pay tribute to our world-renowned songwriters and composers. Hon. Members may have seen early-day motion 35, which I tabled this week to celebrate Ivors Week and the work of the Ivors Academy:
“That this House notes that 16 to 20 May 2022 is Ivors Week, and joins the Ivors Academy in celebrating this country’s world-leading songwriters and composers, culminating in the Ivor Novello Awards which honour the best in British and Irish songwriting and composing; further notes that the success of the UK music industry is founded upon the talent and creativity of world-leading composers and lyricists; and calls on the UK music industry and the Government to ensure that a business and public policy framework exists to nurture future songwriting talent and to properly reward those whose creativity helps generate the £5.2 billion annual economic contribution that music makes to UK plc as well as furnishing people with the soundtracks of their lives.”
May I take this opportunity to thank all our songwriters and composers? I also thank the Ivors Academy’s chief executive Graham Davies, its chair Tom Gray, its former chair Crispin Hunt and all its members for their work championing our great songwriters and composers. I pay tribute to the chair of the Ivors Academy Trust, Cliff Fluet, whose work helps to support, educate and nurture the songwriters, composers and creators who need it most. The Ivors Academy is using this Ivors Week of celebration to launch TheWRD, a new further education diploma in creative entrepreneurship, to offer career-defining arts education, widen opportunity for young people and open access to a career in music and the creative industries.
I also want to highlight Credits Due, the Ivors Academy’s excellent joint initiative with the Music Rights Awareness Foundation, and give a mention to songwriter Fiona Bevan, who is helping to promote it. Its purpose is to increase knowledge of music rights through education and other forms of support. It can go some way towards recovering some of the estimated £500 million of annual missing income that is not paid to songwriters from global streaming revenues because of inaccurate or incomplete metadata attached to recordings.
As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, in these debates I always emphasise creativity’s value in and of itself, not just its economic value. We all understand that music is inherently good for us. Whether we sing tunelessly in the shower, belt out a chant at the football or tap our foot to the radio, music is our common human therapy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for all he does for the music business. I congratulate him on being elected chair of the APPG— there is no better person than him for it. Does he agree that each region of this wondrous United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has so much to offer in cultural expression? Does he know that there are members of the world-class Ulster Orchestra who began their long learning journey in Orange halls across the Province of Northern Ireland? Together, all these cultural expressions make a wonderful musical symphony that makes us all very proud to be British.
Kevin Brennan
I know that the hon. Gentleman is quite a keen musician himself. I agree that music is incredibly important in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—all the countries of our United Kingdom. I also completely agree that music can bring people together in harmony. We should remember that power at all times.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I declare an interest similar to the hon. Gentleman’s. Is he aware that the views that he is expressing are not unique to the Opposition, because many Government Members share his appreciation for composers and his passion for music?
Kevin Brennan
Yes, I am, not least because I have written a couple of songs with the right hon. Gentleman that we have recorded down the years with our band MP4—legends in our own imagination. As we say in these groups, he is not only a drummer, but a musician: he has written songs himself, some of which have cult status on the internet.
UK Music’s recent “Power of Music” report sets out in clear terms the enormous and extensive benefits that music provides for health and wellbeing, with notable effectiveness in regulating and improving the mental health of so many people during the pandemic and in offering particular emotional respite for those with dementia. What is beneficial is not just playing and singing, but creating music. Organisations such as the Songwriting Charity empower young people and communities through the art and craft of songwriting to boost their confidence, self-esteem and mental health.
Some Members may not be aware—although you may be, Mr Deputy Speaker, given your origins—that Ivor Novello, the Welsh songwriter, playwright, composer and actor, was born on Cowbridge Road East in my constituency in 1893. Christened David Ivor Davies, he took the name Novello from his mother, Clara Novello Davies. I was particularly pleased when, three years ago, the former British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors—BASCA—rebranded itself as the Ivors Academy in his memory, and in acknowledgment of the world-famous Ivor Novello Awards, which it runs.
In economic terms, songwriters and composers contribute substantially to the value of our music, performing and visual arts ecosystem, which generates an enormous £10 billion domestically, with music exports constituting £2.9 billion in value to the UK economy. UK Music points out that one in 10 songs streamed globally were produced here in the UK. That is a lot of globally popular UK songs and music.
This past week—and I know that you were watching, Mr Deputy Speaker— exemplified the joy and excitement that songs can create, with the immense talents of a diverse range of musicians and composers from across Europe and beyond brought under the Eurovision roof in Turin. Congratulations, of course, to Ukraine’s Kalush Orchestra, the deserved winners on the night, but also to the UK’s Sam Ryder, who came second. Writing great songs is a Great British tradition, from Ivor Novello’s “Keep the Home Fires Burning”, through Lennon and McCartney’s “I Want To Hold Your Hand”, David Bowie’s “Life on Mars” and Joan Armatrading’s “Love and Affection”, to Adele and Dan Wilson’s “Someone Like You”; but we must not take it for granted that that will go on forever.
I am happy to inform those who are not aware of it that the UK’s Eurovision song, “Space Man”, was co-written by the incredibly talented former student of Cardiff’s Royal Welsh College of Music & Drama and Radio Wales presenter, Amy Wadge. Many had assumed that Britain’s recent lack of success in Eurovision was political, but it turns out that what is needed—as well as a talented artist, good presentation and good production—is, above all, a great song. I am old enough to recall a time when Eurovision was known as the Eurovision Song Contest, and the writers were featured on camera to take a bow for their part in the creation of the music. There is no singer without the song and no song without songwriters, so perhaps that recognition should be resurrected. When I was growing up with vinyl records, which are now popular again, I used to study the labels intently to see who had written the songs. I want people to do that again, so that the art of songwriting is once again given its proper due rather than being hidden away somewhere deep in the metadata.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is a great champion for the music industry, and he has done much to secure a better deal for musicians, particularly from music streaming. He has also worked with the former chair of the Ivors Academy, Crispin Hunt. It is true that we need great songwriters, but we must ensure that they receive a fair share from the music that they have written and performed. I should like to know what more we can do, on both sides of the House, to ensure that musicians receive that better payment.
Kevin Brennan
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. She has been a tremendous advocate on behalf of songwriters and composers, and although we sit on opposite sides of the House and may differ on many subjects, this is a subject on which she has been a passionate advocate for creators to get their just rewards. Later in my speech I will refer to some of the issues that she has mentioned, all of which featured in the private Member’s Bill of which she was a sponsor and which I introduced in the last Session. Ongoing work on parts of the Bill will, I hope, bear fruit in the near future.
We need to improve the wealth of research and development opportunities available to British creatives. Talent pipelines have been left to fracture and decay over the last decade, with cuts in education and local authorities’ services under consecutive Conservative Governments. It is vital that meaningful opportunities exist for the songwriters and composers of the future from all backgrounds, regardless of their genre and of their means and connections. This must be a key test for the DCMS, and particularly for the Secretary of State in the context of her professed desire to level up in her role.
I draw the House’s attention to this week’s very welcome announcement from the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff of the trebling of funding for music education and the launch of Wales’s new national music service, which will ensure that all pupils between three and 16 years of age can access and borrow musical instruments through a national instrument library. It will also expand creative opportunities to pupils of all backgrounds through the offer of half a term’s tuition for free.
The challenge for UK Government Ministers is clear. In a survey conducted on behalf of the Ivors Academy’s TheWRD—the further education diploma that I mentioned earlier—it was found that:
“70% felt that starting a career in music would be difficult, citing barriers such as not having contacts, being too much of a financial risk, lack of opportunities, and the industry not being open to people from their background. When asked about the barriers young people faced in accessing further education, almost 50% of those surveyed felt they were unable to afford it, and 1 in 4 said they do not have access to courses near where they live.”
I hope that the Government will follow the Welsh Government’s initiative when they review their national music plan, and also that they will support the Ivors Academy’s TheWRD initiative that was announced this week.
At this point, I remind the House of the vital role that our public institutions play in nurturing songwriting talent. The BBC sometimes comes under criticism in this House, but I remind hon. Members of the vital role that it plays in underpinning, promoting and paying our musicians, songwriters and composers. BBC Introducing is an excellent example of research and development from our national public service broadcaster. It has supported almost 300,000 artists on its platform and gone on to achieve 23 UK No. 1 hit singles and 146 Brit award nominations. Every day, music is playing somewhere on the BBC. When music is playing, musicians should be getting paid. On the BBC, they are. It is generating royalties for musicians, songwriters and composers. There is, I am afraid, an increasing trend in the new digital media to try to avoid paying composers, and insisting on taking from them what Parliament intended they should have—that is, royalties when their music is used. The BBC has been a helpful bulwark against that trend, and changes in the way in which programmes are now commissioned at arm’s length must not be used to deny composers their full remuneration.
There has rightly been a lot of coverage recently of the cost of living crisis, and sadly, for too many talented and successful musicians, songwriters and composers, getting by on their meagre royalties has been a struggle for years. When we held our Select Committee inquiry, one of our witnesses was a Mercury prize-nominated artist who was struggling to pay their rent because of problems resulting from the pandemic and the lack of reward from streaming.
The Minister will recall that a major provision in my private Member’s Bill, which was sponsored by Members in the House and introduced in the last Session, placed a transparency obligation on those who have had rights transferred or licensed to them, requiring them to supply timely and comprehensive information to the songwriter, composer or artist about where and how their music is being played, so that they can be sure that they are being paid what they are due. The Select Committee recommended this after hearing evidence during its inquiry into the economics of music streaming, which found that it is often difficult for artists and songwriters to gain any clarity or to audit their works. We heard about money that should have been paid disappearing into what are known in the industry as black boxes. It is clear that songwriters suffer particularly because of poor data standards.
On the subject of the value of streaming to songwriters, the Committee expressed concern about how the big three record labels also own large parts of the music publishing business, and about how that might influence the way in which revenue from streaming is distributed. If the big three make more profit from their rights in the recording than they do from their rights in the publishing, there is a disincentive for them to pay songwriters a competitive share of the streaming revenue. The publishing right ought to be competing for more value against the recording, but it appears to be stifled by that problem of joint ownership. I praised the Government at the time for noting the concerns, expressed in the Committee's report, about the impact of monopoly power and cross-ownership in the music industry and for referring the matter to the Competition and Markets Authority for a study of potential market failure. I keenly await its conclusions.
The issue of streaming remuneration has not gone away. There is a real danger, particularly in the current economic context, that we will make no progress on recovering the artists lost to the industry during the pandemic if more is not done to support our songwriters and composers. Last November’s survey by the Help Musicians charity found that 80% of professional musicians had been unable to return to full-time work since the pandemic struck.
The live industry, as one of the sectors forced to shut for the longest period during multiple lockdowns, has also faced an uphill battle in its recovery from the pandemic. The VAT reduction on ticket sales introduced in July 2020 was a vital lifeline for struggling venues and events across the country, and it recognised the sector’s high up-front costs and significant preparatory time. Abandoning the reduction too soon prevented a further £765 million of investment over a three-year period and held back the sector’s post-pandemic recovery. These are the venues and events upon which the creative ecosystem relies. Songwriters get paid by PRS for Music when their compositions are played live, so I ask the Minister to use this Ivors Week to remember that the vibrancy and success of the UK’s music industry are built on the creative activities of songwriters and composers, and that it is not achieved in a vacuum. The pandemic compounded the everyday struggles of our talented artists and exposed the cracks in the industry’s infrastructure.
In classrooms, music venues, festivals and, of course, the money that musicians should be paid, the need for reform and investment is evident. A career in music can be viable, but there is work to be done to ensure that those who have the talent, from whatever background, have a chance at success.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I was privileged to go to the Royal Academy of Music a couple of times recently. I saw some of the composers and songwriters there, so I know the next generation of songwriters and composers will do us proud.
The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for securing this debate and for superbly highlighting the enduring talent and ingenuity of Britain’s songwriters and composers, the value of their creativity in and of itself, and the cultural and economic capital they generate for our nation. I also congratulate him on his election to be the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music.
I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the incredible night on Saturday, when we had the most perfect result we might have hoped for at Eurovision. I congratulate Sam Ryder on his performance and on restoring our reputation for Eurovision mightiness.
If the hon. Gentleman has noticed a modest uptick in his Spotify stats this week, it is because I researched this debate to the mournful strums of “The Wrecker of Wick” and “The Clown & The Cigarette Girl,” two of his great contributions to the British catalogue of compositions. Should his bandmate, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), one day retire, I stand ready to dust off my drumsticks to fill the gap in his magnificent band, MP3/MP4.
From the Beatles to Kate Bush, and from Ed Sheeran to Sam Ryder, the work of UK songwriters and composers is a prized national asset that resonates with audiences all over the world, giving us tremendous soft power globally. I suspect we will shortly see that talent showcased at the platinum jubilee concert. Their skills are vital not only to the music industry but to the creative industries as a whole, including advertising, film and television. The hon. Gentleman cited the role of the BBC, and I recently met its head of pop music to discuss how the BBC nurtures creative talent.
I also thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the importance of music, musicians and composers to wellbeing during the pandemic, when many people found solace in music. At this juncture, I would like to thank an important charity in my constituency, Singing for the Brain, which does fantastic musical work with dementia sufferers.
As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, Monday marked the start of Ivors Week, a celebration of UK songwriters and composers hosted by the Ivors Academy. I am very excited to attend the Ivor Novello awards tomorrow alongside the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I was pleased to hear about the Ivors Academy’s new diploma. That ceremony will place a spotlight on the economic value of music to the UK economy. As UK Music has calculated, the sector employs more people than the steel and fishery industries combined. However, it does face challenges, partly as a result of the pandemic and because of how technology is changing the economic model in the sector.
The hon. Gentleman has been a powerful voice in this House about the ways in which the rise of digital technology is bringing about dramatic changes to the UK music landscape. The advent of streaming has undoubtedly revolutionised the way in which we consume and engage with music, but it has also had a profound impact on the industry. That shift has significantly altered how creators earn an income, as royalties from streaming largely replace music sales as the dominant source of that income. That shift has called into question the business models operated by platforms. I am aware that campaigns such as #brokenrecord, which is led by the Ivors Academy and the Musicians’ Union, highlight concerns about the distribution of streaming royalties. The Government want the UK music industry, including songwriters and composers, to be able to flourish in the digital age. In response to concerns raised by his Committee, the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in its inquiry on streaming, we are undertaking a wide-ranging programme of work to delve into the evidence and find solutions to the issues highlighted by the inquiry.
I have recently met key stakeholders, such as the British Phonographic Industry, UK Music and Warner Music Group, to discuss the music streaming debate and how creators can be further supported. The Secretary of State has also engaged closely on these issues. The major record labels play an important role in helping artists, including emerging talent, so that they can connect with audiences and thrive in the streaming era. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, they have now each announced that they will disregard unrecouped advances from pre-2000 contracts and pay more to more artists for streaming, which was one of the recommendations from the Select Committee’s inquiry. I know that that was greeted positively by artist representatives.
We think that those kinds of industry initiatives are a step in the right direction to make sure that the streaming market is fairer, but we are looking at what else we can do and whether further action will be necessary. Similarly, although we agree with many of the issues raised by the Committee in its inquiry, we want to ensure that any action is based on the best available evidence. The Minister for science, research and innovation, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), and I have written to the Select Committee this week with an update on the work under way. In advance of the hon. Gentleman receiving that letter, let me update him by saying that the Intellectual Property Office is now working alongside industry experts to develop solutions to issues around contract transparency and music metadata, one of the issues he highlighted today. That will have an impact on the way in which songwriters and composers are remunerated for their work on streaming. We have also commissioned independent research on the impact of potential legislative interventions aimed at improving creator remuneration.
The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation is progressing work on the effects of algorithms on music consumption and the potential impacts on music creators. It is also exploring how streaming services can better communicate with creators and mitigate against potential harms for those groups. The hon. Gentleman cited the Competition and Markets Authority. It is undertaking a market study into music streaming, which will add value to and complement the Government’s programme of work, and could help inform any future intervention. That CMA market study was launched in January 2022, as he will know. An update is due in July, with the study scheduled to conclude in January 2023. We are encouraged by the progress of the programme of work so far, with industry stakeholders engaging constructively and taking the issues seriously.
Another key income stream for our composers and musicians comes from live music. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, the live music scene is undergoing a period of recovery, in the wake of a very difficult experience during the pandemic, and we are working hard to support it. I am glad to reflect on where we stand today compared with the grim situation that faced us over the Christmas period with omicron, when the team and I were talking through the needs of the live music sector in emergency support meetings. I am glad that some of the worst fears highlighted at that time have not come to pass and that we have been able to open up the economy, which has been crucial in getting that income flowing into venues again. But we also want to build on existing schemes to continue to support the live music sector. Since the national lottery project grant’s “Supporting Grassroots Live Music” scheme launched in 2019, the Arts Council has made 253 awards, and invested £4.7million in venues and promoters through that fund. That has supported everything from upgrading equipment and offering free rehearsal spaces and mentoring, to refurbishing bathrooms and staging family-friendly gigs. That is separate to a lot of the support that we put in during the pandemic and via the cultural recovery fund. I am pleased to say that the Arts Council has confirmed that the fund has been extended until 31 March 2023. That will, thanks to national lottery players, provide a £1.5 million ringfenced fund that will support the grassroots live music sector.
Not only are we seeing domestic recovery from the pandemic, but we are a major presence on the international music scene. We are the largest exporter of music in the world after the USA, with around one in 10 of all tracks streamed globally being by a British artist. That is incredible. The sector’s high export capacity and its ability to access international audiences will continue to elevate the UK on the global stage, forge new international relationships and enable us to promote British values around the world.
Alongside the work I have outlined, we continue to provide export support for the UK’s creative industries through a range of export-support programmes, including the international showcase fund and the successful music export growth scheme, which provides grants to music companies to help them with marketing campaigns when they look to introduce successful UK music projects overseas.
We are looking at what more we can do as part of the wider creative sector vision—to be published in the summer —on support for UK creative talent. As part of that sector vision, we are working with the industry to build a more resilient workforce, and we have co-funded research from the Creative Industries Policy & Evidence Centre to look into the job quality and working practices of the creative industries. That will help us to better understand some of the really tricky issues that affect the workforce in the creative sector, including in respect of freelancers and creators, and particularly when it comes to job security, remuneration, professional development and wellbeing. As I say, the sector vision is due to be published this summer. We hope to use the document as the basis of a longer-term strategy that takes us up to 2030.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about investing in the future of music makers to make sure that our music success story continues. We want to make sure that all young people engage with music, and we plan to do so through the implementation of a national plan for music education. The NPME strategy sets out our vision for all children and young people to learn to sing, play an instrument and create music together, and to have the opportunity to progress their musical interests and talents, including professionally. We are confident that such initiatives will help to provide the next generation of aspiring creators with the tools and knowledge they need to achieve their full potential. I hope to make further announcements on the subject when we have finished that piece of work.
I think everyone present would agree that the work of songwriters and composers is not only crucial to the success of our music industry but hugely beneficial to the UK’s culture and economy. That is why we will continue to work alongside the industry to seek solutions and make a tangible difference. We will also continue to celebrate and commend the work of UK songwriters and composers. I wish the Ivors Academy and every participant in the awards tomorrow the very best of luck.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2022.
As ever, it is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Sir Gary.
This statutory instrument, a draft of which was laid before the House on 29 March, will deliver a reformed and more accountable Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which will play an important role supporting farmers through a time of significant transition. While the instrument marks an end of the AHDB’s levy work in the horticulture and potato sectors, it also marks an important new beginning for how the AHDB engages with and delivers for other sectors, including cereals, oilseeds, beef, sheep, pork and dairy.
The draft instrument respects the outcome of the recent ballot of levy payers in the horticulture and potato sectors, in which more than 60% voted to end the AHDB statutory levy. It is clear from the ballot and industry feedback that the statutory levy mechanism is not meeting the diverse needs of horticulture and potato businesses, and a different approach is needed going forward.
It is important to highlight, however, that although the overall result of the horticulture ballot supported an end to the statutory levy, there are diverse views, with some subsectors such as soft fruit, tree fruit and mushrooms voting to keep a levy. I recognise the concerns of some growers about losing investment in important research and crop-protection activities that the AHDB levy traditionally funded. Therefore, while the draft instrument respects the ballot by repealing the statutory levy provisions, it also ensures that the horticulture and potato sectors remain in scope of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2008.
This means that any parts of the industry that want to continue to work with and fund the AHDB are able to do so on a voluntary levy or commercial basis in future. That enables the AHDB to continue to deliver legacy research and plant-protection services to those sectors during a transition period. I assure hon. Members that the Government continue to engage proactively with the horticulture industry to develop alternative industry-led funding models for research and development activities.
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who should have been moving consideration of the draft SI but was unable to do so, recently chaired a roundtable with industry to discuss that issue. She was pleased to hear that the industry is coming together to formulate new funding models, such as grower-led syndicate funding for priority crop research and development activities, and the potential for a voluntary levy to fund activities that require a more co-ordinated and long-term approach, such as for crop protection, pesticide application or horizon scanning for sustainable alternatives.
The draft instrument also marks the beginning of a new direction for the AHDB: an AHDB that is more accountable to levy payers in other sectors, including beef, sheep, pork, dairy, cereals and oilseeds. It also delivers a new duty on the AHDB, giving levy payers a regular vote on sector priorities. That is something that people particularly requested—they wanted a more regular say, and that will happen every five years. In future, therefore, levy payers will have more influence over AHDB sector programmes, and over how much levy will be raised and what it will be spent on. The whole thing will be more focused on what those paying the levy say they want.
The AHDB has been working hard to deliver that already through its “Shape the Future” campaign. That is where levy payers vote—as they have just voted—on the priorities that they want the AHDB to deliver over the coming months and years. That is a momentous step forward for the organisation, marking a turning point by putting levy payers right at the heart of everything it does.
I draw the Committee’s attention to a technical drafting point. As a consequence of removing the horticulture levy provisions, the draft instrument will broaden the definition of the horticulture industry in the AHDB order. The definition will now include the growing of a wider range of horticultural products by way of business. That will deliver more flexibility in future as it will enable more businesses in the horticulture sector to work with the AHDB on a voluntary levy or commercial basis if they wish to do so. To support such flexibility, the draft instrument also includes provisions to clarify that the AHDB can charge to cover the cost of services that it may deliver in future to any agriculture or horticulture business that is in scope of the AHDB order.
Those legislative changes sit alongside significant governance and cultural changes that the AHDB has already put in place to deliver a more inclusive democratic organisation that is in a stronger position to meet the needs of farmers. We all know how important that is, particularly right now, and the changes should set them up well for the future.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the Chair, Sir Gary. I thank the Minister for her introduction, which was thorough and fair. She will be delighted to know that we support the measures. Our discussions are also informed by the debate that was held in the Lords yesterday, which I shall refer to later. We very much agree that the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board plays an important role. The statutory change to the way it works is significant because, as an industry-funded body, it is important that confidence is maintained. The changes will play an important part in that.
Anyone watching what is happening in the sector could not have helped but notice 18 months ago that there was a lot of passion around the vote. There were strong views on both sides of the argument in the horticulture and potato sectors, and it is fair to say there was considerable disappointment among those who had always advocated an industry-wide approach when the ballots were lost. Also, there was for a little while some scepticism as to whether the Government would honour the outcome of the vote. Today they have, and we welcome that. It is right that when Governments make agreements, they honour them. As I am sure others find, there is a view, not just in agriculture but in wider society, that those in power do not always listen. Whereas the previous point was perhaps partisan, this one is not. People feel that the world is changing rapidly, but that their views are not always taken into account—I think there was a sense of that in the farming sector. Today it is good that the Government and the AHDB are listening.
Before going into the details of the draft instrument, I want to follow on from the Minister’s comments and say a little bit about the organisation at its heart. It was established under the previous Labour Government and plays—I am sure this is widely agreed—an important role in British agriculture. Although there is a lot of rhetoric about how good we are at investing in research and development, anyone standing back and taking an independent look at our country’s record would have to admit that we are not always quite as good at it as we would like to be.
Looking back at the agricultural and food sector, there have been times in the past when we perhaps did rather better. It is often easy not to think too much about the future and just carry on in any sector doing what we do but, given the pace of change in the modern world, that is not going to work. That is why having a body that can invest in a whole range of things, analyse what is happening in markets and look at new innovations is essential. It is often best done collectively, but that, sadly, is also something that we in the UK do not always do well.
The AHDB has played and continues to play an important role. I pay tribute to Nicholas Saphir, Tim Rycroft and their colleagues as they try to align the organisation more closely with the concerns of those who pay for it, which is not always easy. As politicians, we are sensitive to how difficult that can sometimes be.
Working across a host of agricultural sectors, the AHDB undertakes important research, development and farm-level knowledge transfer, along with working to improve supply chain transparency—that is particularly important at the moment—and stimulating demand to help develop export markets. The fact is that farming is a tough business and most farms do not have the time, resources or capacity to engage in detail in these activities. Of course, some of the bigger organisations are well placed to do it themselves, and some sub-sectors are better placed than others, as the Minister has hinted, but I am afraid there is some concern for smaller producers.
The AHDB plays an important role in pooling the financial resources from farm businesses big and small to invest in improving the sector for everyone. I would argue that the Government continue to come up short in their response to the problems engulfing our supply chains and export markets, but many farmers are reassured that the AHDB is working on their behalf. However—exactly as the Minister said—for potatoes and horticulture, the decision is made.
The first component of the draft instrument is the removal of statutory levies in the horticulture and potato sectors. As I said earlier, that decision comes as a direct result of a ballot held by those sectors, and it should rightly be respected. Both votes saw a turnout of more than 60%, and in both cases, close to 70% of the votes were for the statutory levy to end—that is a strong mandate.
The departure of those sectors will mean that the AHDB’s annual funding of £57 million is reduced by around £13 million. I am told and reassured that, because the board’s finances are already managed on a sector-by-sector basis, the loss of horticulture and potatoes is organisationally manageable, but shared costs inevitably mean that it will have consequences. We should always remember that there are direct consequences for those individuals who lost their jobs during the winding-down process, and there is also the loss of their valuable expertise. Inevitably, there is concern that there may be a move for a similar dismantling in other sectors, but I am reassured that, as the Minister indicated, the results of the AHDB’s first vote on levy payer preferences, about which I will say a little more later, shows strong support for much of the board’s work programme.
I have a couple of concerns regarding the impact of the end of the statutory levy on potato and horticultural producers. I hope that the Minister will address my concerns or pass them on to her ministerial colleague to address at a later point. There is industry concern in the potato sector about the end of the Fight Against Blight service and the yellow water trap aphid monitoring service. I am told that the Scottish Government are currently helping the industry to find a long-term solution, and that the AHDB has facilitated the transfer and delivery of those programmes to the James Hutton Institute so that a stopgap solution can be found.
In horticulture, the AHDB will continue to provide until 2023 the funded service on emergency chemical crop protection authorisations for minor use, while the industry—facilitated by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I hope—tries to reach an agreement on how such a service should be funded and organised. However, achieving consensus on which secretariat should administer the process is apparently proving a challenge. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what actions her Department is taking to ensure that the key services provided by the AHDB can continue in some form, following the end of the levy in those sectors.
As the Minister indicated, it is clear—I think the AHDB acknowledges this—that the votes to end the levy in those two sectors were partly a product of the body not listening closely enough to levy payers and changing too slowly. However, the AHDB also believes that the “no” vote resulted from severe financial pressures caused by supply-chain pressure and low profit margins. I am concerned that, because the Government are still failing to get to grips with the various crises that are affecting the industry as a whole, too many producers have been left in a very difficult position. For them, opting out of the levy was one of the very last resorts as they sought to keep their businesses afloat. That may be the better option for individual businesses in the short term, but the harm it could cause the industry as a whole, as evidenced by the various schemes that are now under threat, could be significant.
I am also a little troubled by a potential unintended consequence of allowing producers in the potato and horticultural sectors to purchase services directly from the AHDB. That is clearly a response to the situation we find ourselves in. It is good that producers can continue to have a relationship with the board if they so choose, but there is a danger that it unfairly disadvantages smaller producers. The removal of the pooling effect of the levy, and of the ability to buy services directly from the board, could mean that larger producers will continue to benefit from the work of the AHDB, without sharing those benefits with smaller producers who will be less able to afford direct services. Will the Minister tell us what assessment her Department has made of the impact on smaller producers? If a disparity is found, what steps will be taken to address it?
My colleague Baroness Jones raised in the Lords yesterday a series of questions that I will put to the Minister today. She queried when the Department first became aware of the unhappiness in these sectors that led to the ballot being called, and what was done at that time to address it. She suggested a range of possibilities. Was it the cost of the levy? Did people feel they were not getting value for money? Are we sure that the new ballots to shape priorities will really address those concerns?
Could the Minister also say a little about the relationship with the devolved nations as the AHDB goes forward? On the legacy research and plant protection services referenced in paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum, could the Minister explain how the value of previous research will be protected and built on?
I was struck by the Lords Minister’s comments in his comprehensive reply to Baroness Jones of Whitchurch:
“It is not appropriate for public funding to replace levy-funded activity”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 May 2022; Vol. 822, c. GC7.]
I appreciate that he was seeking to draw a distinction, but does the Minister agree that there are bound to be overlaps and that we should not rule out filling gaps where it is in the wider public interest that work could be done.
In conclusion, we welcome the decision to enhance levy payers’ voices through a vote at least every five years on the AHDB’s priorities and work programme. I know that the AHDB has already been making efforts to improve levy-payer engagement, including the new requirement for members of sector councils to be ratified by levy payers. The results of the first vote, released this Monday, indicate, I hope, a bright future for AHDB. We want the organisation to succeed and flourish, and trust that the measures will assist in that process.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Gary. I thank the Minister for laying out the Government’s reasoning for the instrument. Save for a few quick points, I would like to echo most of what the Opposition spokesperson has stated, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
As horticulture and potato sector levy payers democratically voted by a majority to discontinue the levy, it is only right that their wishes are respected. Furthermore, when devolution is respected and consent sought prior to legislating in this place, devolved Governments are often content and balance is retained, as opposed to UK Ministers encroaching on devolved areas.
The Scottish Parliament has approved this draft amendment. Its main reason for doing so is that, following the Brexit transition period, the UK was classed as a third country, and under EU Commission rules, sensitive products—which seed potatoes and ware are classified as—require separate technical listings for trade to be allowed from third countries.
Of course, under the Northern Ireland protocol, and as is the case with exports to the EU, the movement of Scottish seed potatoes to Northern Ireland is banned. Scotland is the world leader in seed potato production and Europe is the largest and most lucrative market for Scottish seed potato, agriculture and horticulture exports. For that reason, we support the measure.
Rebecca Pow
I thank those who have made an input to this debate. I very much welcome the support of both shadow Ministers—from Scotland and from the Labour Bench—and I agree that it is absolutely right that we respect this democratic vote. The Government said that we would, and we have done so. It is the right way to proceed, as is listening to the views of our farmers. That is critical, and one good thing about this tweak is that the farmers themselves will be much more involved in the research and the requirements they want from the levy, which, after all, they are paying.
I also agree that it is important that we equip our farmers—particularly in such times as we are facing—with the very best research, data and scientific advice. I believe that the AHDB has in the past done a great deal of that, but it will now be even more tailored towards our farmers so that they will get what they need and want to keep them in the globally leading position that they already hold. However, we must work on going forwards.
I recognise that there are concerns regarding the loss of £14 million of the annual levy funding for horticulture research and the need to retain skills and research capabilities in these sectors. We must recognise, however, that the one-size-fits-all approach—that is, the previous mechanism—is not working for the diverse needs of these sectors. That is why it is clear that we must listen, and their view in the ballot was to end the statutory levy contribution.
As I have previously highlighted, new approaches to funding horticultural research and crop protections are being worked on, including voluntary levies, subscription or membership models, and commercial agreements with the AHDB or other suitable organisations capable of co-ordinating and delivering applied research services for the industry. Obviously, many bodies do such work, such as the amazing UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, which I visited just this week. The work it is doing for a wide range of different industries in the farming and environment space is phenomenal, and East Malling and all the other research centres, such as the James Hutton Institute in Scotland, will all have their place.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), raised the issue of whether pooling the money would help the bigger industries, such as the beef and sheep sectors, more. I believe that the new approaches that are being worked on for horticulture and the potato industry will get around that, with smaller groups of individuals, such as those in the horticulture sector, able to get what they need out of the research. Voluntary levies have some advantages over statutory levies, which are classified as public money and are therefore bound by tighter rules and restrictions, as was outlined in the other place yesterday. Funding from voluntary levies can be used in a much more flexible way—for instance, to lever in match funding from other investment. Discussions with industry on those options are ongoing, with the aim of agreeing new industry-led funding models over the coming months.
I recognise the increasing importance of supporting our horticulture sector, particularly as we face the challenges of rising input costs. We are all looking at the opportunities and barriers that the horticulture sector faces in supporting sustainable growth and increasing productivity, especially given that sustainability, food security and so forth play such an important role. That includes looking at innovative ways of doing so, such as vertical farming. I have seen some of that myself; what can potentially be achieved is phenomenal, and we are looking at powering some of that with solar panels. The world seems to be really accelerating, with greater automation and other technologies that can help maximise crop growth and increase productivity, but we are also working hard to tackle the labour supply challenges that the sector faces.
I expected the shadow Minister to mention the seasonal worker visa, but he did not do so. That visa will be extended through to 2024, allowing overseas workers to come to the UK for up to six months to harvest both edible and ornamental crops. Some 30,000 visas will be available this year to cover this harvest period, which will be kept under review.
Daniel Zeichner
Only in the sense that I am responding to the Minister’s contribution, Sir Gary. Having just spoken to representatives from the poultry sector, I wonder if the Minister could make representations to the Home Office to try to unlock some of the problems affecting recruitment. She always has a sunny disposition and an optimistic view of the world, but there are a lot of problems out there.
The Chair
I am sure she will do that, but we will now go back to the order, if that is okay.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you, Sir Gary, for keeping us absolutely on track. Of course, we are dealing with horticulture, and I hope the shadow Minister is pleased that there will be 30,000 visas to help that sector. I am absolutely sure that that case is being made for the whole horticultural industry.
I understand the frustrations expressed about the fact that reforming the AHDB has taken some time and has potentially come too late for people in the horticulture and potato sectors who have voted with their feet. There were delays, but those were due to the inevitable reprioritisation of work because of covid-19. Before the ballots were triggered, the AHDB had already started that journey of reform, including engaging with the horticulture and potato sectors on options for modernising the levy mechanism. Views across the sector on the statutory levy have, however, been very polarised, and agreement on a new statutory structure was not forthcoming before the ballot was called.
I will answer a couple of further questions. A point was made about the ongoing blight service and the aphid monitoring service, and I note that Scotland already has an arrangement to keep those going. We are in discussion with the Scottish Government and key bodies, such as the James Hutton Institute, on the impacts of the potato levy ending and on how Scottish potato businesses want to find key services. We will provide more detail when those discussions have concluded. I hope that answers the shadow Minister’s questions. I will be happy to write to him if there are any further details, but I think that covers it for now.
The shadow Minister also asked whether the draft order covers the devolveds as well. It has been made quite clear that it does, but there are varying degrees of involvement, depending on the sectors.
I would like to give assurances that the AHDB is fully committed to putting levy payers at the heart of its operations, and a significant change programme has now been implemented. A new skills-based board is in place, and at least 50% of its members are current or recent levy payers. Levy payers can now vote on the membership of the AHDB sector councils, making them more representative and accountable—that was raised and has now been dealt with. Additionally, the results of the AHDB’s Shape the Future campaign have just been published and can be assessed on the AHDB website. I think they came out yesterday, and they give important levy payer feedback. It shows that farmers value the work that the AHDB does to open new export markets, to educate consumers, to promote UK produce, to provide reliable independent data and market intelligence, and to provide products and services that help farmers to be more efficient, more profitable and sustainable. All the detail of what came out of the recent assessment is on the website.
This instrument provides much-needed certainty on the end of the statutory levy in horticulture and potatoes, enabling the industry to move on and develop new funding models that are better suited to their needs. Importantly, it also underpins the beginning of a reformed and more accountable AHDB to other levy-paying sectors, delivering value for money and supporting our precious farmers, whether they are in Wales, England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. We are making the whole system more accountable and delivering what our farmers really want and need. On that note, I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne
Recycling plastics is energy and emission-intensive, so would we not be better to end the use of plastic bottles and concentrate on the deposit and return of glass ones?
Jo Churchill
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, but actually it is about the use of the appropriate material for the appropriate product. Plastic is a good product when used sensibly and when it can be recycled, and we often now see 100% recycled plastic. We are introducing a deposit return scheme for drinks containers so that consumers can easily recycle them. News of that and work on it will be coming forward shortly, to be delivered in 2025.
[Official Report, 28 April 2022, Vol. 712, c. 855.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill).
An error has been identified in my response to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne).
The correct response should have been:
Jo Churchill
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, but actually it is about the use of the appropriate material for the appropriate product. Plastic is a good product when used sensibly and when it can be recycled, and we often now see 100% recycled plastic. We are introducing a deposit return scheme for drinks containers so that consumers can easily recycle them. News of that and work on it will be coming forward shortly.
Written Statements
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence and Security Industrial Strategy
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
I wish to update Parliament on the progress made since the publication of the defence and security industrial strategy (DSIS) on 23 March 2021.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has highlighted even more the importance of a sustainable and resilient sector that generates the necessary skills to deliver the capabilities we and our partners need, now and in the future.
Over the past 12 months, Government and industry have made significant progress on more than 50 DSIS commitments, and today, I am pleased to announce the publication of the land industrial strategy (LIS) which will be published on the www.gov.uk website shortly. I am also placing a copy in the Library of the House.
The Land Industrial Strategy
The LIS draws on DSIS principles to provide, for the first time, a specific strategy for the sector. It sets the conditions for a long-term collaborative approach, based on shared culture and behaviours that support co-investment in capability delivery, innovation, the strengthening of supply chains and the national industrial resilience the UK needs to respond to crisis.
The LIS is not intended to prevent MOD looking overseas to acquire where appropriate the best value for money equipment. It is however designed to encourage greater transparency and partnerships, especially with onshore suppliers.
The LIS should support the delivery of modernised equipment to the frontline more quickly and efficiently. Key platforms will serve for decades, so we will use open architectures, commonality and modularity, and work with industry to make upgrades through-life. This will give us enhanced capabilities and decisive advantage against adversaries, and, with our allies, the critical “technological edge” needed in this information age.
Partnerships
In the coming years, Government will be asking more of industry, to become more efficient and more enterprising, ensuring we have access to the skills and capabilities we need. This is why we are offering greater long-term transparency on our plans and policies. Since DSIS, MOD has published strategies for digital, data, shipbuilding, space and now land. Other documents such as the defence artificial intelligence strategy will be published shortly.
In addition, we are now going beyond the commitments set out a year ago and, building on the principles of DSIS, we will soon be publishing a defence capability framework that will articulate our longer-term military capability priorities and challenges, providing greater transparency of our future plans and building upon the equipment plan 21. It will map out those areas where we expect industry to invest and upskill, combining our collective efforts to achieve the best outcomes for the UK.
In January, in recognition of the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) for innovation, diversity, and resilience in MOD’s supply chains, we published the refreshed SME action plan, which sets out how MOD will continue to create opportunities for SMEs.
I will shortly be launching the defence technology exploitation programme (DTEP)—a UK-wide initiative that will fund and support collaborative projects between SMEs and higher tier defence suppliers—and help them win new business delivering against MOD’s technological priorities.
DSIS also focuses on strengthening our partnerships abroad including through developing our Government-to-Government frameworks to better support defence exports.
Acquisition and Procurement Reform
Closer to home, we are driving increased pace into acquisition and incentivising innovation and productivity through a range of acquisition improvement initiatives and fundamental reforms of the regulations that govern defence and security procurement and single source contracts.
The implementation of category management is expected to result in financial savings and capability benefits such as improved availability and time to delivery, through a pan-Defence approach to buying goods and services.
We are improving the way that we manage our senior responsible owner (SRO) cadre by introducing an SRO talent pool and ensuring that our SRO skills are matched to the challenges of the projects. We are also targeting the SROs on our biggest projects allocating at least 50% of their time to the task.
We have implemented the social value model within MOD’s procurement process, ensuring contracts deliver against key MOD outcomes and also support wider Government objectives. The MOD’s social value centre of expertise has been established and is ensuring this model is consistently applied.
In March, the Joint Economic Data Hub published its first annual report, highlighting the important role the defence sector makes to the UK economy, including the large number of defence jobs supported by international business as well as the many apprentices and graduates in the sector. This is part of the drive by Defence to be more transparent in setting out the economic contribution the defence sector makes across the UK.
Innovation
This Government have reversed the long-term decline in research and development through additional funding and our ringfenced investment of at least £6.6 billon over the four years of the 2020 spending review. We have increased funding to the UK Defence Solutions Centre and the Defence and Security Accelerator, which is helping turn private sector innovation into military capability.
In February, the UK’s first defence space strategy included a commitment to invest a further £1.4 billion into space technologies over the next decade—with additional innovation funding since being provided; and in March, I opened the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory’s first regional S&T hub in Newcastle upon Tyne, focusing on AI and data science to exploit the latest technological breakthroughs for use across Defence.
We are also working closely across Government with the Joint Security and Resilience Centre at the Home Office and UK Defence and Security Exports at the Department for International Trade to create a more resilient, more efficient, and more innovative security sector.
Conclusion
We have made significant progress in the first year of DSIS, but there is more to be done. The Defence Secretary and I, supported by other Government Ministers, will continue to review progress against commitments to make sure our armed forces will continue to get the equipment and capabilities they need to keep us safe and drive prosperity.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2022-05-18/HCWS36/
[HCWS36]
Fire Reform White Paper and Improving Fire Safety for the Public
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) has today made the following written ministerial statement:
I am pleased to make a number of announcements to the House today that set out both the Government’s fire reform agenda and the introduction of a package of fire safety measures that will protect the public for years to come. Taken together, this is about:
Driving forward reform of the fire and rescue service by launching the Fire Reform White Paper and consultation (CP 670)
Implementing a package of measures to improve fire safety
Improving transparency and engaging the public.
Fire Reform White Paper and consultation
The Fire Reform White Paper and consultation seeks to introduce system-wide reform to strengthen fire and rescue services across England. The proposals are set out under three key themes: people; professionalism; and governance. The consultation is launching today to seek views and will be open for 10 weeks.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforming-our-fire-and-rescue-service
Review of the National Joint Council
As set out in the White Paper the Government will launch a review of the National Joint Council for Local Authority Fire and Rescue Services. The review, which will commence later this year, will consider whether the pay negotiation mechanism in England is fit for purpose.
The Fire Safety Act 2021
The Fire Safety Act 2021 was commenced in full on 16 May 2022. This will clarify that structure, external walls and flat entrance doors of blocks of flats are within scope of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (the fire safety order) and ensure that they are included in that building’s fire risk assessment.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-act-2021
Fire risk assessment prioritisation tool
To support commencement of the Fire Safety Act 2021, the Home Office is publishing supporting guidance issued under article 50 of the fire safety order and launching an online prioritisation tool. The new fire risk assessment prioritisation tool has been developed to help responsible persons identify the priority for updating fire risk assessments.
Fire risk assessment prioritisation tool: https://bpt.homeoffice.gov.uk/
Fire Safety (Regulations) 2022
The Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 will require responsible persons to send information on high-rise residential buildings which will help fire and rescue services better plan for and respond to a fire. They will also improve fire safety in high-rise buildings by setting a baseline on safety checks on lifts for firefighters and other key pieces of firefighting equipment and, in mid-rise buildings, on doors. They will also make residents in all multi-occupied residential buildings feel safer by providing them with fire safety instructions and information on the importance of fire doors. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-england-regulations-2022
Personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) consultation response, and new consultation
We are publishing the responses to our PEEPs consultation which we ran from 8 June to 19 July 2021. We have taken account of the substantial difficulties of mandating PEEPs in high-rise residential buildings and have developed new proposals that we are confident deliver proportionality, practicality and improve safety for those vulnerable people living in the highest risk buildings. We will now consult and seek views on these proposals.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/personal-emergency-evacuation-plans
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/emergency-evacuation-information-sharing
Fourth thematic update on Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 recommendations
We are publishing our latest update on progress against Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 recommendations. This shows progress made by Government Departments, and relevant public authorities, including the London Fire Brigade, and National Fire Chiefs Council. The tracker provides a digestible, transparent way for the public to hold those responsible for delivering recommendations to account. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/quarterly-thematic-update-on-progress-against-the-grenfell-tower-inquiry-phase-1-recommendations
Fires in high-rise residential buildings in England are rare, and thankfully deaths from fires in high-rise residential buildings are extremely rare. The Government, however, are committed to learning the lessons of the tragedy at Grenfell Tower.
[HCWS35]
House of Lords
House of Lords: Appointments
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to reform the current system of appointments to the House of Lords.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, there are no plans to make changes to the current system of appointments.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, on Monday, at Questions, the Minister gave a clear indication that there might be. He said that because of the number of government defeats in the Lords there might well be some more Tory Peers on the way, even more than at present. Can he confirm at least the facts, which are as follows: that the number of Tory Peers today as a proportion of the whole House is 33%, which is far higher than when the last Labour Government were in power, and that the Government now have an absolute majority of the political parties over Labour and the Liberal Democrats combined, something we could only dream about when a Labour Government were in power? So if despite all these advantages that this Tory Government have got the Prime Minister is worrying about losing votes, is it not clear that the problem is not the shortage of Tory Peers but a Government who simply cannot get their act together?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there are a lot of questions there. The original Question, which I answered, was whether there are plans to reform the current system of appointments to this House, and I repeat that there are not. So far as numbers are concerned, I did not notice the noble Lord being reticent when he was advising Mr Tony Blair on appointing Labour Peers.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I would like to ask a question about hereditary by-elections. Can it be right that membership of this House can be by an exclusive back door marked “hereditary Peers only”? Why will the Government not introduce the kind of legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was talking about? Reforming legislation to remove anomalies like that would be widely welcomed, not least by this House.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend refers to a back door. The back door is actually the law of the land, a statute passed by Parliament. Hereditary Peers continue to contribute to the work of your Lordships’ House through committee memberships and in debates in the Chamber, and I think they do so in an outstanding manner.
Lord Beith (LD)
The Minister said that there were no plans. There are of course plans and they have had the general approval of this House. They were plans put forward by the Burns committee to enable an orderly system of retirement and replacement on a one-for-two basis, with a proper arrangement for representation of the various parties and groups in the House. Why does the Minister still set his face against those plans?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the previous Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister have made it clear that they do not accept the principle that a cap should be placed on the size of your Lordships’ House. Such an event with an appointed House would mean that the appointed House was impervious to any response from the House of Commons in a constitutional crisis.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister can help the House. On 18 November, in talking about the Appointments Commission, he said he was happy with the current procedure whereby the commission is able to recommend non-party-political appointments as well as advising on propriety. Could he tell us in what circumstances a recommendation of the Appointments Commission can be rejected by the Prime Minister and what justification there is for that?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the commission’s role is an advisory one. The Prime Minister continues to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice. We believe that the commission plays an important role and performs it well. Noble Lords keep returning to an individual case. The Prime Minister said he saw the case of my noble friend as a clear and rare exception, and we have no plans to change the status of HOLAC.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Has my noble friend noticed that our noble friend Lord Norton is introducing a Private Member’s Bill that would put the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis? Would he at least agree to talk with my noble friend Lord Norton with a view to the Government accepting this eminently sensible, modest measure?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is my habit and pleasure always to talk to Members of your Lordships’ House, and that would certainly include my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. If his Bill comes forward then I will certainly respond to it, but the Government have no plans to change the status of HOLAC. We do not agree that it should be placed on a statutory basis. It is an independent committee, and we consider its advice carefully.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, in his carefully-worded reply earlier, the Minister suggested that the present Prime Minister and the previous one were absolutely at one about not imposing a cap on the size of the House. However, is it not true that in fact they take diametrically different positions on reducing the size of the House, and that the previous Prime Minister, implementing the policy set out in the Conservative Party manifesto to reduce the size of the House, took a self-denying ordinance and helped to take forward the Burns review proposals, which has absolutely been turned on its head by the present Prime Minister?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, with respect, I do not agree that if one looks at the historical record one finds that this Prime Minister has appointed Peers at a rate that is, say, faster than that of Mr Tony Blair. I think it is agreed in this House, and it is implicit in some of the comments made by your Lordships with which I agree, that retirement has a place in your Lordships’ House. The corollary of that is that the House also needs refreshment, and that must continue.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is rather sinister that the Prime Minister refuses to publish the security evidence given to him when he wanted, and proceeded, to appoint the son of a KGB agent as a Member of this House?
Lord True (Con)
No, my Lords. The noble Lord knows that I have the greatest esteem for him, and that normally disclosures relating to national security matters are not made. Generally, for any appointment, from the lowest in the land to the highest, data protection and freedom of information applies. But in this case, information has been provided separately to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, which illustrates that the Government are acting in good faith in responding to Parliament’s requests.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, during lockdown, there were all sorts of laws of the land about gatherings and yet No. 10—the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues—broke those laws. Why are there some laws that they respect and some they feel free to break?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, that is rather wide of the Question. The law of the land is something that we should all respect and that includes, if I may say so, extreme campaigners for green issues.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, the Minister keeps on citing Tony Blair. The big difference is that Tony Blair put Peers in this House from all parties, and that this Prime Minister almost exclusively puts Conservatives in.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we could have a debate about that particular record. The principle of refreshing the House is an important one and it applies not only to Government Benches, but I do not notice the Benches over there being understocked at the moment.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, on the point that the Minister has just made, can he remind the House how much refreshing has been done of the Government Benches during the last two, or perhaps two-and-a-half, years, as compared with the refreshing that has been done of other groups?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, if I may express an opinion, as I have already said, I am very aware of the feelings on the Benches of Her Majesty’s Opposition about the case for refreshment of those Benches. I will say no more than that, but I think it is a strong case.
Lord Bird (CB)
Can I make a very unpopular suggestion? There is one way that we could really sort this out: that it does not matter how you get into the House; we should base it on what you do in the House. To me, that is the most important thing, and I think we have a lot of people in this House who do not actually engage. Why do we not ask them to move on, so that the other people who want to do something with this mighty House and this mighty democracy can get on with it?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the whole House has great affection for the noble Lord, Lord Bird, but I would say that there are many Members of your Lordships’ House who may not come frequently but, when they do, your Lordships listen very carefully to their voice.
Heritage Steam Sector: Coal
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the heritage steam sector in the light of the current interruption to coal supplies.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer the House to my heritage interests in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government appreciate the unique importance of the heritage steam industry both in promoting the UK’s rich industrial heritage and for the wider visitor economy. We acknowledge the difficult circumstances facing the sector in light of the rising cost of coal on the international commodity markets and are in regular communication with the sector to explore how we may be able to assist. The Government have invested approximately £18 million in heritage steam organisations over recent years through the Culture Recovery Fund.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that during the passage of the Environment Bill his noble friend Lady Bloomfield, whom I am delighted to see in her place, made clear the Government’s support for this sector and that there would be no curb on the burning of coal by steam trains, not least because only 0.02% of CO2 emissions are caused by heritage steam. But imports of coal from Russia have now stopped and virtually every coal mine in Great Britain has closed; as a result, stocks are at a dangerously low level. Will the Minister agree to meet representatives of the sector and me, and is he able to offer any other hope of where future coal stocks will come from?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to remind your Lordships’ House of the commitment made by my noble friend in respect of the Environment Act. In respect of Russia, in response to President Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the Government have rightly committed to phasing out Russian coal imports by the end of 2022. We think that gives enough time to find alternative suppliers, but we understand and appreciate the pressures on the heritage rail sector, particularly as it faces a crucial year recovering from the pandemic. We have been pleased to discuss this—my honourable friend the heritage Minister has done so with the sector—and we would be very happy to continue to do so as the year unfolds.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, can I raise a wider question with my noble friend? Not only are we talking about steam engines on rail, but about a very big element in society for steam traction engines and other vehicles of this kind. The key point is that the nature of the coal is almost as important as the amount. The amount of sulphur in the coal, for instance, is critical to the safe operation of steam engines on rail, all these other steam-powered vehicles, and indeed those things in showgrounds that we all love to see.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right; this is important for traction engines, maritime steam, industrial museums, blacksmiths and many more. I had the pleasure of discussing this with the director of the National Railway Museum last week at the Science Museum. Despite encouraging research trials by a number of partners in the UK to produce an artificial coal alternative, it is still very much in the research and development stage, with no alternative sources at present. So we continue to discuss this with the sector.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, do the Government recognise that it is a very particular type of coal that is suitable for use in steam engines? The Ffos-y-fran mine in Merthyr Tydfil has been producing such coal, but it has not been reprieved from closure. Therefore, will the Government negotiate with the Welsh Government to see whether there is a way that that mine can be retained to maintain our own domestic supply, specifically for use in these very special steam engines?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, there is no policy from Her Majesty’s Government to shut down existing coal mines. Any proposals for new coal mining projects or the extension of existing contracts would be assessed in accordance with the current statutory requirements, including at Ffos-y-fran.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, the closure of the Ffos-y-fran colliery and the ban on importing coal from Russia make things very difficult. The Gloucestershire Warwickshire Steam Railway says that the problem of future coal supplies and uncertainty about passenger numbers because of the financial squeeze mean that development projects are being put on hold. Will the Minister bear in mind that bringing coal from overseas is not only more expensive but has a huge carbon footprint?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will certainly acknowledge that; the noble Lord makes an important point. Obviously, the situation vis-à-vis Russia and Ukraine has a particular short-term impact. We are very happy to discuss that with the sector to make sure that it can get the fuel it needs. But, ultimately, the question of where in the world the fuel is sourced from is a matter for the private institutions and companies involved.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I do not often make a mistake on these occasions, so forgive me. Can I make a suggestion to the Minister, which struck me when I went to the National Coal Mining Museum in Wakefield? Why do we not make the obtaining of the necessary coal, for the heritage purposes described this afternoon, part of the heritage? Why do we not invest in that, including making it accessible to the public as we take out the coal required for this very specific purpose?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very interesting point. Obviously, a number of the coal seams are no longer able to be exploited, including where we have heritage museums rightly reminding us of our mining heritage. As a grandson from a mining family, I am very aware of that. I will certainly take back the suggestion he makes to the department and discuss it.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, took some of the words out of my mouth regarding Ffos-y-fran’s location. Would the Minister link up with the Welsh Government to see whether there is any possibility of being able to get appropriate coal from Ffos-y-fran near Merthyr Tydfil? Of course, some of this coal can be reclamation coal, which perhaps makes it easier. In those circumstances, would this not be a way forward for the small train business and tourism sector throughout the UK?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we are not aware whether the operators of the mine at Ffos-y-fran are considering replacing their screening equipment or appropriating either the Welsh Government or the Coal Authority. However, I will certainly take that point back to discuss with my honourable friend.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as the president of the Steam Boat Association, an owner of a steamboat and a customer of the Welsh mine which the noble Lord has just mentioned. Can we take this very seriously indeed? If the Government really believe that we need to improve our security of supply, we have Welsh steam coal, which is the best in the world and vital not just for steamboats, but, as has been said, for tourism industries and the rest. It seems completely mad to argue that we should import coal from elsewhere, with all the green negative consequences.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend gives a very good example of the wealth of experience in your Lordships’ House. He is right about the importance of this issue. Obviously, there is a particular short-term factor here regarding the situation in Russia and Ukraine, but we are very mindful too that this is an important year for the sector as it recovers from the period of closure during the pandemic. That is why, through our tourism recovery plan, we are supporting not just the heritage steam industry but the wider visitor economy, and why we are continuing to discuss this with the sector.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. Would not the heritage steam sector, like all other tourist activities, benefit from double summer time or something similar? Is it not time that the Government set up an independent commission to look at the merits of greater daylight usage, which is supported by so many organisations, particularly now, given the increased pressure of energy costs?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point. The Government have set up an interministerial group on the visitor economy, and I will direct the noble Lord’s point to my ministerial colleagues.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I live not far from the Bluebell Railway which, later this year, will play host to the iconic “Flying Scotsman”. That line places specific emphasis on the educational value of our heritage steam sector, and I wonder whether the Government should be investing more in this. Perhaps, as part of the discussions with the heritage steam sector, they could take forward some further thinking to increase the country’s knowledge of the value and importance of steam and its part in our great Industrial Revolution.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Absolutely. Coming from the north-east, the cradle of the railways and the birthplace of George and Robert Stephenson, I am very mindful of the approaching bicentenary of the first passenger rail. We are already discussing that with the National Railway Museum and others in the sector. It is very important that we continue to inspire people about our industrial past, as well as turning their minds to scientific challenges for the future—not least looking at clean coal and other energies.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I think that the Minister appreciates that we are talking about very small amounts—relatively speaking—of coal towards a heritage sector that simply cannot function without it. So I would like him to give an answer on the principle of this: for these very small amounts, is it not surely better to acquire them somewhere on these islands than to bring them here from long distances abroad? I declare an interest as the president of the Telford Steam Railway.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I pay tribute to the noble Lord in that important capacity. He is right. We discussed this with the sector and, as has been noted by other noble Lords, the coal must be of the right type and suitably bituminous. That cannot always be provided from the British Isles, but we will continue to discuss this with the sector to ensure that they have the supplies they need.
Touring Hauliers: Arts Organisations
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to their announcement on 6 May regarding “dual registration” for specialist touring hauliers, what assessment they have made of the impact this will have on artists and organisations which tour in their own vehicles and operate under “own account”; and whether they have considered support for smaller hauliers operating which do not have the resources to operate dual registration.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, specialist touring hauliers operating under “own account” can utilise the dual-registration measure if they have a standard international operator licence, which they must apply for, and a base in Great Britain and another country. Operators will need to make their own decisions on whether they choose to do so based on business need and resources available to them.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this is all very much half a loaf. If a comprehensive solution is not found, the damage to the UK music industry and the events support industry will be massive. The Prime Minister has assured us that the Government are working “flat out” on the touring issue. Can the Minister assure the House that her department is urgently working on finding a wider solution, such as an exemption from cabotage for all trucks engaged on cultural events?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Certainly, the department has worked incredibly hard on this and continues to do so. We had a public consultation back in February, and we are deeply engaged with the industry, particularly the specialist haulage industry, which is so important. We know that about one in five hauliers has already set up within the EU, and many more have plans to do so. We recognise that the dual-registration system will not benefit absolutely everybody. However, it is the case under the TCA that many hauliers will be able to make use of their two cross-trades within the bilateral EU-UK movements that they can make. So it does not mean that all touring is off the table. We believe that, at the moment, we have the best possible solution, in light of the current response from the EU.
Baroness Bull (CB)
The Minister will be aware that, alongside cabotage, CITES and carnet regulations are adding further cost and complexity to post-Brexit touring. Last week at the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in Brussels, there was welcome support for my argument that, given that both sides say that they offered a deal that the other rejected, it means that we have common cause—and it is an issue that we could, in fact, resolve quickly, unlike some of the more complicated issues on the table. Does the Minister agree and, if so, will the Government consider a cultural exemption for all three Cs—cabotage, carnets and CITES—as the most practical solution to a problem that we all want to resolve?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness raises some important points, and I shall ensure that my department and the Government make sure that we make the most of the areas where we already have agreement. However, I am afraid that we know that the EU will not accept greater amounts of cabotage.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that there is a precedent in the temporary cabotage exemption negotiated for international hauliers working in the UK to provide support for supply chains while addressing the shortage of HGV drivers? At the very least, an own account exemption could be negotiated, which would be a great help.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Those two things are not the same, in that the cabotage easement that we put in place was for EU hauliers coming to the UK, which meant that they could do unlimited cabotage within the 14 days. The EU did not reciprocate; it did not change its cabotage arrangements at all for UK- registered hauliers, who can do only one cabotage movement within the EU, and one cross-trade.
Lord Storey (LD)
I am sure that the Minister is aware that those performers most affected are those at the lower and middle part of the industry. How will they be helped by these cabotage provisions, which will be of use only to the biggest specialist hauliers?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The cabotage conditions will, of course, apply to everybody, unless they have an EU base. As for the smaller hauliers and those operating on their own account, as I said previously, they can operate if they have the standard international operator licence. They can also get an ECMT international road haulage permit, which gives an extra cross-trade. So an organisation based in the UK could travel to the EU and do events in three separate countries, all within the current regulations.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, further to the Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, many orchestras have their own vehicles for touring in Europe, specially fitted out at considerable expense to meet their specific needs. As I understand it, these are now virtually unusable as a result of the own account exemption being excluded from the trade and co-operation agreement. Can the Minister enlighten me? She seemed to imply that that was not the case, whereas the orchestras concerned feel that they cannot use their own vehicles for touring in Europe.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
They can use their own vehicles for touring in Europe if they have a standard operator licence. They still have to remain within the requirements set out in the TCA, which is either two cross-trades or one cross-trade and one cabotage. However, as I have said previously, they can get an ECMT permit to do three cross-trades. We recognise the challenges for those operating on their own account, because they have to operate within those particular requirements. However, if they are of a significant size, they may wish to set up an organisation in the EU, and then they would have slightly greater, although not unlimited, flexibility—but it might be helpful.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, it seems to me that the Minister is saying that the Government have done as much as they intend to do. It is equally clear from the industry press that the industry feels that this is a really serious problem for small and medium-sized performers. I do not understand the industry very well, but I would imagine that big bands come from little bands and that the importance of the industry over time is that the small successes are able to grow. Surely this whole situation is sufficiently serious for the department to continue pressure to try to devise a system that works for the smaller operators.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I reassure all noble Lords that we have thought long and hard about this. We have engaged with the EU but, when we did so, the exemption for specialist hauliers was rejected. Our door remains open for discussing alternative exemptions. There is a limit to what we can do on a unilateral basis. This was the best idea that came up both from my officials working on this and from our consultation with industry—68% were in favour of this. When it comes to smaller operators and those operating on their own account, the other option would be for them to go into partnership with an EU haulier and thereby provide that continuity across the system.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I back up what the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, was saying about a good body of opinion among the MEPs that we met at the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly last week, which was very sympathetic to this problem. It is very much a problem designed to be discussed by the trade-specialised committees of the trade and co-operation agreement. Can the Minister tell us which specialised committee will be tackling it and when that committee will next meet?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Unfortunately, I will have to write to the noble Earl; I do not have that with me today.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister suggests that things are getting better, but we are starved of any information about the damage that has been done to this sector over the last two or three years. Would she be so kind as to provide the House with some statistics showing how many of these operators have been able to tour and have got cabotage rights, carnets and so on over the last, say, four years? That would be a great help.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
It is a very complex picture. As I mentioned earlier, one in five has already set up with an EU base and a further 6% plan to do so. However, as I also mentioned, it is the case that many tours can already go ahead depending on how many different stops that particular event will have within the EU. If I can find any further details from the industry, I will certainly write to the noble Lord.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, further to the Minister’s answer to the noble Lord, can she give any encouragement or hope to youth orchestras? It is not just professional orchestras that are finding it difficult to tour. Youth orchestras are vital for the experience gained by the young people—I admit that both my children spent years touring and playing all over Europe and had enormous experience with the Stoneleigh Youth Orchestra—but I fear that these in particular are falling completely by the wayside. Can the Minister offer any hope or encouragement for them?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not aware that there is a particular issue here for youth orchestras. Like any orchestra, if a youth orchestra does not have its own vehicles, it can of course contract with an appropriate haulier which is able to operate within the regime that is set up in the UK and in the EU. It will depend on the sort of tour that youth orchestras want to do and how many countries they will be visiting as to the rules and regulations and which licences will need to be held by the haulier with which they choose to contract.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, is the gist of what the Minister has said today that everything is satisfactory and nothing further needs to be done?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I completely reject that—that is not what I am saying at all. The Government absolutely recognise that the measures that we have put in place help the sector and mean that a large proportion of the UK industry can continue to operate, but we acknowledge that not all specialist operators will be in a position to establish a base overseas. As I have said before, our door remains open; we would wish to discuss this with the EU but so far, unfortunately, it has not wanted to do so.
St George’s Hospital: Patient Deaths
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the coroner’s ruling on patient deaths at St George’s Hospital which found that deaths were “unnecessary” and the result of “inadequate” NHS-led investigations; and what steps they will take to prevent such failings in future.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and in so doing declare an interest as a member of the GMC.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
NHS England and Improvement will review the coroner’s prevention of future death reports and respond within the agreed timescales. The coroner’s investigations are ongoing. The Government are committed to improving the standard of investigations into serious patient safety incidents in the NHS to create a culture of learning from mistakes and to improve patient safety.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister. This is a serious issue. An independent review into cardiac surgery at St George’s Hospital found evidence of shortcomings and a number of avoidable deaths. This finding has been totally contradicted by the senior coroner for inner west London, who found the methodology used in the review completely flawed and said of a particular case that the coroner was dealing with that the doctor’s approach had been without reproach. Given the review that will now be undertaken, does the Minister accept that, if the coroner is right, the whole method used by the NHS for these reviews will come under question?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I understand the premise behind the assertion and the Question but, as I explained to the noble Lord yesterday, a number of issues are ongoing—the coroner’s inquest, an employment tribunal and a number of other reviews—which, sadly, I am not allowed to comment on. However, I can say at the moment that we are committed to improving the standard of patient safety investigations. We have set up the independent patient safety investigation service and HSSIB to look at this, as the noble Lord will know from the Bill, and we have a number of independent investigations guidance for standard operating procedures by NHS England and Improvement for teams to use.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
In the light of the criticisms levelled by the coroner over the structured judgment review in particular, will the Government undertake to require the royal colleges and the new bodies set up to look at the procedure used? Although it looked at case notes, it included neither full oversight of previous medical history nor direct observation of clinical procedures, surgical technique—including anaesthesia—and post-operative nursing, all of which have an impact on outcomes. We all know that clinical opinion varies; the point at which a procedure is judged as high risk versus futile varies from centre to centre and can vary within them from one surgeon to another.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness clearly draws on her own experience of this. First, we have to wait for all the coroners’ inquests to finish; I think 36 have been completed at the moment. There will then be reviews, to which there is a statutory guideline on when they have to be responded to. However, it is also important to recognise the differences between the coroners’ inquests and the work of the independent mortality review, which was not undertaken to determine the cause of death in individual cases or attribute blame to individual clinicians—it was looking at a number of procedures.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, it is nice of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to put this Question to the House. It is a very serious matter that patient deaths at St George’s Hospital were unnecessary. Having digested the comments, we must take the appropriate steps so that such negligence is not repeated. Hospitals are meant to save the lives of patients, not end them. Human life is very important.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend makes very important points which I am sure many noble Lords will agree with. It is about understanding what went wrong in places and learning from that. NHS England and Improvement is committed to improving the standard of patient safety investigations. It set up a new patient safety investigations team; as many noble Lords will know, HSSIB and a number of other panels and investigations are also looking to learn. In addition, NHS England and Improvement will have to respond to the coroners’ reports.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the coroner noted that the NHSI investigation had not used expert investigators and in some cases used only desktop research, looking at case papers, failing to interview key staff witnesses and take a longer view. Given that HSIB uses independent specialist teams and provides a safe space for staff and whistleblowers to talk, is there not a case for asking HSIB now to do its own investigation into this?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very important question, and it was one of the questions I asked when I was being briefed on this. Unfortunately, when HSIB was established, it did not investigate to historical cases. The future HSSIB will also not be able to investigate such cases; it will undertake only cases that are brought to it in the future.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interests. The Minister rightly identifies that the NHS, and indeed all healthcare systems, must be committed to ensuring the best clinical outcomes and securing patient safety. Clinical failings are subjected currently to a number of different potential investigations, such as local employer investigation, professional regulatory investigation, systems regulator investigation, civil litigation and potential criminal prosecution and interrogation. How do Her Majesty’s Government ensure that these multiple routes for investigating a clinical failing are properly co-ordinated to ensure that immediate learnings from such failings are applied to drive system improvement?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord raises a very important point about the complexity of having a number of investigating bodies. When I was being briefed yesterday, I was surprised by the number of ongoing investigations. We acknowledge that there needs to be a consistent approach to establishing and running investigations and inquiries. We are currently looking to develop an effective and user-friendly guide to handling inquiries and involving DHSC policy procurement IT colleagues in the development of a framework. We are working also with the Cabinet Office to ensure consistency across government, so that whatever we do in health is consistent with other investigations.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, the murder of Stephen Lawrence really caused a lot of trouble. The Met had a review and another review—and another review. The last person to do an apparently thorough review, Sir William Macpherson, turned up at the inquiry and said, “Your evidence is so awful we cannot listen to it any more.” Kent Constabulary carried out a review, but it did not uncover all the stuff that the Stephen Lawrence inquiry found. It was therefore suggested that there must be an independent police inquiry body so that the police are not marking their own homework. I wonder whether the same thing is happening here and whether this new independent review will uncover all that is required.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble and right reverend Lord raises a number of important points about consistency and the number of investigations. Their remits are often different, which can confuse the picture, and sometimes some of the investigating bodies are seen to extend beyond their remit, causing further confusion. In this case it is important to recognise the difference between the coroner’s inquest and the work of the independent mortality review. Coroners’ inquests are different, and an independent mortality review was not undertaken to determine the cause of death in individual cases or to attribute blame. It was all about processes, procedures and culture.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, it is hard to imagine the trauma and pain that bereaved families have suffered, and the terrible impact on surgeons, the staff team and patients. It is concerning to read reports that junior doctors have been prevented from returning to work at the unit to keep them out of a toxic culture of inappropriate behaviour. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what is being done to stamp out toxicity, not just in these tragic circumstances but in NHS workplaces more generally, and what assessment has been made of the problem?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Let me begin by agreeing with the noble Baroness on how important it is to recognise the impact that this has had on the bereaved families, and the uncertainty they have experienced. They thought it was going in one direction; clearly that was addressed by the coroner and now the coroner may apologise. When I was looking at this in more detail, I was sadly told not to discuss the culture because of ongoing investigations, but I commit to write to the noble Baroness, to make sure that I am not breaking any legal principles and that I give her a proper response rather than an inappropriate one now.
Queen’s Speech
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury
That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which was addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour to open this debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech on the important issues of foreign affairs, defence and trade. I am also delighted to be joined by my noble friend Lord Ahmad, who I know will employ his trademark expertise and erudition to good effect.
When my noble friends Lady Goldie and Lord Ahmad stood at this Dispatch Box a year ago to open and close the same debate, they spoke of a changing global dynamic: a world recovering from a pandemic that changed everything; a world of rapidly advancing technology; and a new era of systemic competition. They warned that with this changing dynamic has come an increasingly divided and unstable world. They warned of an increasingly assertive Russia, in a world where hostile states sought to destabilise the international order. They warned of a world with increased militarisation, and a world facing the ever-growing impacts of climate change. This is the world we see around us today.
We are witnessing the illegal, and utterly brutal, invasion of Ukraine by the Putin regime. Day after day, we hear of Russian forces’ war crimes: family homes turned to rubble; murdered civilians in mass graves; and despicable testimonies of rape and torture. These acts reverberate far beyond Ukraine—they threaten the security of Europe and the world. The aggressors must fail, and that is why we have been resolute in our response. The Government are using all their diplomatic, defence, humanitarian and trade levers to support Ukraine, and we will keep going until they prevail.
When it comes to defence, our personnel have been delivering across the world. Last year, Royal Navy sailors travelled 40,000 nautical miles to the Indo-Pacific on our carrier strike group’s maiden mission, projecting influence and engaging with allies. In May, UK troops on the UN’s peacekeeping mission in Mali seized crucial weapons from suspected Daesh terrorists, and in August, our aviators undertook the largest airlift since Berlin to help evacuate thousands of people from Afghanistan. But those events now seem to belong to a different era, confronted as we are by Putin’s brutal war in Ukraine.
The integrated review identified Russia as a primary threat, and that has proved true. In response, we have donated more defensive weapons to Ukraine than any other European country, as well as providing logistics support for international aid. More broadly, we are reinforcing NATO allies understandably alarmed at the savagery occurring mere miles from their border. We have doubled our troops in Estonia to 1,700, sent personnel to support Lithuanian intelligence and reconnaissance efforts, deployed 350 Royal Marines in Poland, increased our presence in the skies over south-eastern Europe and sent offshore patrol vessels and destroyers to the eastern Mediterranean. Closer to home, the Navy is now leading the operational response to small boats in the channel, ensuring control of our borders and cracking down on people smugglers.
Looking to the future, defence is modernising to counter these multiplying threats. We are investing an extra £24 billion over four years in our forces, providing them with state-of-the-art tanks, sixth-generation fighter jets and Dreadnought nuclear submarines. We have also launched the first space command in Wycombe, set up the National Cyber Force in Preston and opened an artificial intelligence hub in Newcastle. Meanwhile, we have ring-fenced £6.6 billion of defence spending for research and development so we can fast-track the most cutting-edge technologies. However, our greatest capability remains our people. That is why we are upgrading our estate, investing in healthcare and training and recruiting talent which truly reflects the diverse society we serve. Taken together, this is the most significant transformation in UK defence since the end of the Cold War. In an ever more dangerous world, it has never been more necessary.
Alongside military support to Ukraine, we are leading the way in the diplomatic response. Our package of humanitarian, economic and military support is worth $2 billion. We are isolating Putin on the world stage. The UN General Assembly voted to suspend Russia from the Human Rights Council and 141 UN member states voted to condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Putin and his forces will be held to account for their barbarity. Our state party referral of the situation to the International Criminal Court is now backed by 40 states. We are cutting funding to Putin’s war chest through sanctions and crippling his war machine. The UK is introducing the most severe economic sanctions that Russia has ever faced, covering a record 1,600 individuals, entities and subsidiaries.
Putin can be in no doubt: his illegal war has strengthened European unity, strengthened NATO unity and strengthened the very idea of what it means to be Ukrainian. Putin has forged a resolve among democratic countries to remove the tentacles of Russian influence and interference. He has created an alliance in support of Ukraine that is determined to face down tyranny, in Russia and beyond. Putin’s war challenges us to find a model for international partnerships that is more cogent and more equitable, a model that stands up to aggressors, in defence of sovereignty and self-determination.
The Foreign Secretary describes those alliances as a network of liberty. This Government will strengthen that network in the years ahead, to demonstrate that respect for the rule of law, fair play, free trade and co-operation is the surest route to peace. We will do this by shoring up our collective defence, galvanising our economic security and deepening our alliances around the world. We will do it with the billions we spend each year to help the world’s poorest, with humanitarian aid, development assistance and support for women’s inclusion and, most importantly, girls’ education. We will do it by helping countries rebuild from the pandemic and grow resilient for the future. And we will do it by promoting British values and standing up for human rights. Partnerships such as NATO, the G7 and the Commonwealth are at the heart of this effort. Partnerships are of course living things, which grow and evolve over time.
In Northern Ireland, our first priority is to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions: it is a triumph of compromise after decades of instability. However, the practical problems of the Northern Ireland protocol weigh heavily and are upsetting that balance. The UK has proposed what we believe to be a comprehensive and reasonable solution that would meet both our and the EU’s original objectives for the protocol. It would address the frictions in east-west trade while protecting the EU single market.
However, the challenge is that this solution requires a change to the protocol itself. Our preference, of course—we have made this very clear—remains a negotiated solution, but we must allow the Executive to be restored and assure peace and stability. That is why, yesterday, the Foreign Secretary announced our intention to legislate for changes to the protocol in the coming weeks, protecting the elements that work and fixing those that do not.
This legislation is lawful. Proceeding with this Bill is consistent with our obligations in international law—and in support of our prior obligations to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We are crystal clear that the EU will not be negatively impacted in any way. However, we must live up to our commitments to all the communities of Northern Ireland, and we must reframe the protocol with an equal respect for both unions: the UK and the EU.
To return to the war in Ukraine, our trade relationships are our absolute lifeblood, and the Department for International Trade knows that the same is true of Russia. The work the FCDO and the MoD are doing cannot be done in isolation. The DIT is also doing its part in weakening Putin’s war machine. We announced further sanctions on 8 May, targeting £1.7 billion-worth of trade. Those sanctions included import tariffs and export bans, with the import tariffs covering £1.4 billion-worth of goods, hampering Putin’s ability to fund his war effort. Meanwhile, the export bans intend to hit more than £250 million-worth of goods in sectors of the Russian economy most dependent on UK goods. It has brought the total value of products on which full or partial import and export sanctions will apply to more than £4 billion.
Of course, the actions we have taken require a collective approach with partners, and my department has sought to strengthen the relationships we have as an independent member of the WTO and through our FTA programme. In 2021 we signed our agreement with Australia and the EEA/EFTA countries, and this year we have signed our FTA with New Zealand and our digital economy agreement with Singapore. Additionally, we launched negotiations with Canada in March. We will be continuing negotiations to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership and have completed three rounds of negotiations with India. We are also preparing to begin negotiations on new trade deals with Mexico and the Gulf Cooperation Council. It is our objective to put the UK at the centre of a network of modern deals spanning the Americas and Indo-Pacific. We have also tabled legislation required for the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements to eventually enter into force.
The Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill provides a power to make changes to UK procurement regulations to implement the obligations in the government procurement chapters of the Australia and New Zealand FTAs. The Bill delivers on a key Brexit benefit of having our own independent trade policy and of course supports the Government’s levelling-up agenda, with all nations and regions of the UK set to benefit from the deals.
However, FTAs are not the only tool my department is using to support the Government’s levelling-up agenda. In November last year, the Trade Secretary announced a refreshed cross-government export strategy for the whole of the UK, at the UK’s first International Trade Week. In my own ministerial portfolio, the Office for Investment has been working tirelessly to attract big strategic investment into the parts of the UK that need it most.
In conclusion, the world faces significant challenges, and the UK is stepping up on the international stage to tackle them with our partners and friends. As I look around the House, with distinguished former Foreign and Defence Ministers present, not to mention an illustrious miscellany of noble Lords with acknowledged expertise in these areas, I look forward to today’s debate.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity we have today to debate the many issues confronting the world, but I cannot hide my disappointment that I will be spending more time talking about what is missing from the gracious Speech than what is present. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine represents an unprecedented geopolitical situation, yet this Government’s Queen’s Speech barely addressed it and the MoD is not even mentioned.
Last year’s integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy highlighted the need for the UK to play an active role in ensuring that open societies and economies can flourish across the world by championing free trade and global co-operation, tackling conflict and instability and standing up for democracy and human rights, yet the international development strategy promised in that review and published this week makes no explicit prioritisation to do this. All we got was a vague reference. I hope that when he responds, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, can confirm whether the Government have reneged on this commitment and, if they have not, how they will address the issues driving conflict and defending human rights in line with the integrated review?
Turning to Ukraine and defence first, there are no plans to reboot defence plans in response to Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine or rethink Army cuts. Despite promising to
“invest in our gallant Armed Forces”,
Ministers are pushing ahead with a £1.7 billion cut to day-to-day MoD spending, which means less money for forces’ pay, recruitment and families. More than a dozen European countries are now rebooting security plans and looking again at defence spending, so why are our Government not doing so?
The Procurement Bill fails to ensure greater protection of jobs in the defence sector by adopting a British-built-by-default approach intended to boost manufacturing within the UK supply chain. When we reach the appropriate stage in the Bill’s passage, I hope the Government will support an opposition amendment to deliver this boost to our economy. There is no commitment to bring forward the national resilience strategy to boost homeland defences. We have been waiting for this strategy for 14 months. When will we get it? We need a new security White Paper to revise our defence plans to deal with the new threats to UK and European security, and to halt cuts to the Army. Are the Government considering this?
A key part of defending democracy, the international rules-based order, the rule of law and human rights in Ukraine and elsewhere is, of course, as the Minister said in his introduction, through international co-operation, whether it be NATO or other forums such as the G7, the United Nations or the Commonwealth. Our shared commitment to strengthening partnerships and to engaging diplomatically and constructively with international organisations from a unified position is unshakeable.
However, Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has highlighted how misguided many of the Government’s strategic assumptions about foreign policy have been. I cannot agree with the Minister about the integrated review, which wrongly de-emphasised the importance of European security. Also on European security, the key recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia remain unimplemented. Tackling and challenging Russia’s political, economic and military reach is imperative to European security, and the work must start at home. The United Kingdom must stop acting as a hiding place and service industry for criminals and their money.
Although our current focus is rightly on Ukraine and Russia, it is far from the only global crisis. Many countries have experienced almost non-stop conflict over the past decade. Our support for Ukraine, including humanitarian assistance, should not come out of ODA. The poorest in the world should not have to pay the price of Russian aggression. There are currently multiple crises of nutrition that will only get worse with increasing conflict and the negative effects of climate change.
Yesterday, UNICEF published a short report on the state of malnutrition. It shows that, in spite of rising levels of severe wasting in children and rising costs of treatment, global financing towards nutrition does not match the need, making up just 0.2% of ODA globally. East African countries are dependent on Ukraine and Russia for 90% of their grain imports and parts of the region are also experiencing severe drought. Worldwide, at least 13.6 million children aged under five suffer from severe wasting, with two in three of these children—roughly 10 million—not being reached for treatment, resulting in one in five deaths among this age group.
After the Nutrition for Growth summit, I welcomed the Government’s commitment to spending at least £1.5 billion on addressing global malnutrition over the next eight years. I also welcomed their commitment to adopting the OECD DAC nutrition policy marker across their programmes. Sadly, Monday’s strategy did not include a specific prioritisation of nutrition. We still do not know how this money will be spent between nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive programming, nor when the money will begin to be disbursed.
The reason I make this point is because building a good foundation of nutrition is absolutely essential for achieving the Government’s stated objectives of empowering women and girls, providing life-saving humanitarian assistance and advancing work on climate change, nature and global health. I hope that the Minister will today reiterate the Government’s previous commitment of reaching 50 million children, women and adolescent girls with nutrition-relevant programmes by 2025.
I could list all the countries we are focused on at the moment in terms of nutrition. In Afghanistan, 25 million people are in need. In Ethiopia, a further 25 million people are in need, with 4 million people displaced. Two-thirds of the population of Yemen are in need after years of conflict. Nigeria faces growing insecurity and, in South Sudan, more than three-quarters of the population are in need after a decade of conflict. We also should not forget Colombia, which remains the most dangerous place in the world to be a human rights defender, with more than 60 activists killed in the first four months of 2022.
Rather than restoring the UK’s development expertise, targeting aid on poverty reduction and prioritising climate, conflict and health funding, the Government instead prioritise a naïve, aid-for-trade approach that simply will not work. This is an approach that takes us back to the 1980s and corruption scandals such as the Pergau dam.
The plan to reduce the proportion of aid spending to multilaterals from 40% today to just 25% by 2025 could result in huge cuts to life-saving programmes. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Global Fund will be protected from any funding cuts and that the United Kingdom will join our greatest ally, the United States, in making a strong pledge at its seventh replenishment. I also hope that the Government will reconsider a much swifter return to the 0.7% target and using the aid budget to help those most in need, and not trade favours with big corporations.
Finally, I turn to trade, the part of this debate that had at least some substance in the Queen’s Speech, as the Minister mentioned, through the electronic trade documents Bill, which has the potential to ease burdens on businesses and save billions at the same time. The noble Lord mentioned the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill, which will facilitate agreements that the Government claim will boost the economy by over £3 billion. So far, the Government are failing to use British negotiating clout around the world to promote those principles in the integrated review; the principles of high standards, from workers’ rights to trade union freedom and climate commitments. I hope that we will see something different. At the centre of this Queen’s Speech should have been a plan to ensure that trade delivers for businesses and communities, especially at this time of a cost of living crisis.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has pointed out, the gracious Speech was in many ways rather lacking in the themes of today’s debate. That is very common. There is very little in the legislative sphere that your Lordships’ House is requested to opine upon in the course of the annual year or parliamentary Session. However, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, thinks that he spends more time in your Lordships’ House answering questions than many other Ministers. That is precisely because there are so many issues of vital importance to this country, and globally, linked to his portfolio—which every time we hear from him seems to have expanded to another part of the world and another set of issues. Today, he has the undoubted pleasure of responding to the debate on foreign affairs, international development—which is still part of FCDO —defence, trade and Europe. Europe is of course the dog that does not bark at the moment, and received very few words in the gracious Speech.
However, if today’s debate has very little to do with legislation, that might come as a relief. As the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, put it in his witty moving of the humble Address, an earlier Lord Mancroft had bemoaned that we have been overlegislated in this country. That was 70 years ago, at the start of Her Majesty’s reign. The noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, seemed to think that this would be of particular interest to the Opposition Benches; that for some reason we would think that there was too much legislation in the world. I have the advantage, in sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches, of seeing the faces of the government party, and in particular the Conservative Privy Council Bench. I assure your Lordships that nobody looked more delighted at the idea that there was too much legislation than the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.
We are all very happy to have a debate and discuss policy that does not necessarily link to legislation but, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed out, some areas of the gracious Speech were perhaps lacking. In his opening remarks, the Minister began to flesh out some of these areas and there are others that we will need to probe during this Session that link to defence expenditure. The rhetoric is one thing, but the reality might be different. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, pointed out that some people ask whether we can afford to spend so much on defence; his response, as is that of these Benches in many ways, given the crisis in Ukraine, is whether we can afford not to make that expenditure.
The gracious Speech talked about the Government playing a leading role in defending democracy and freedom across the world, including by continuing to support the people of Ukraine. In his opening remarks, the Minister spent much of his time explaining the Government’s commitment to Ukraine, which is very welcome, but he also made some comments that were a little unexpected, suggesting that Vladimir Putin has done nothing more than to foster European unity. If that is the case, do we really need a Brexit freedoms Bill or should we be looking at ways in which the United Kingdom can reunite with Europe? I am intrigued by the Minister’s comments in that regard, because there is clearly a need for greater co-operation with our allies in Europe and beyond.
I would like to press the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who will be responding, on the sorts of initiatives Her Majesty’s Government are taking beyond defence support for Ukraine. That is clear and welcome, but we have seen the Prime Minister go to Finland and Sweden and offer bilateral security commitments. That could be seen as very brave, but is it credible? What commitments is the Prime Minister offering that go beyond membership of NATO, and have Her Majesty’s Government thought through the implications of the words of our Prime Minister, occasionally, and of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary, who do not always seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet? Their words could be seen as inflammatory in a way that perhaps is not intended. I would like to hear a little more about the extent to which the United Kingdom is working with NATO allies and prospective NATO allies, and to consider how far our commitments are credible and the United Kingdom can be a reliable partner.
That very much fits with some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins: what are we doing on defence? It is easy for Ministers to say that we have made this major commitment to defence expenditure, but one of the biggest problems in the world today is inflation. One of the knowns about defence expenditure is that defence inflation is normally higher than the retail prices index. So will the Minister tell the House what calculations Her Majesty’s Government are making to assess whether the defence expenditure commitment is high enough? The rhetoric means nothing at all if we do not see something concrete emerging. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, will raise various questions, perhaps about shipping and our capability in that sphere—I could be wrong; he may talk about something entirely different—but this is a very serious issue. Rhetoric is one thing; delivery is another.
This takes me to one of the Bills that was mentioned in the gracious Speech and on which we have been given a briefing: the Procurement Bill. It does not necessarily sound like something that fits in foreign affairs, but defence has been particularly lacking in this area and it is very clear that defence is included in the new Procurement Bill. It is all very well to legislate and have a wonderful procurement policy, and it may be that Her Majesty’s Government will bring forward legislation and we will amend it in such a way that all Members of your Lordships’ House will say, “What a fantastic Act the Procurement Act 2022 or 2023 is.”
However, an Act of Parliament is no use whatever if people engaged in procurement are not able to use it effectively, so what advice and comfort can Her Majesty’s Government give, particularly in the defence sphere, that defence procurement is going to improve and that we are going to see defence equipment delivered on time and within budget? That is an issue not of legislation but of good governance, and we need to see more of it.
The gracious Speech also talks about the benefits of Brexit. It will not surprise your Lordships to hear that, speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, I have found it quite difficult to find any benefit from Brexit. Apparently it is going to lead to growth. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, is looking across the Chamber, and he will be speaking shortly. I am sure he will disagree with me and will suggest that there are many benefits of Brexit. But so far, we are seeing not growth but labour shortages, raging inflation and stagflation. I admit that that is not all because of Brexit. Some of it is coming from war and the sanctions on Ukraine. When we had the emergency debate on Ukraine in the previous Session, I very strongly made the point, which I reiterate today, that however much we support sanctions against Russia associated with the war in Ukraine, it is important to be clear to the British public about some of the implications of sanctions because they do not affect Russia alone. We need to be clearer about that.
In winding up, I turn to the advice we have been given on the Brexit freedoms Bill. It suggests that a review has found about 1,000 pieces of legislation that could be looked at again, that all this legislation was rapidly negotiated in the past and had inadequate scrutiny, and that much of the law coming from the European Union was
“imposed and changed with minimal parliamentary scrutiny in the past”.
The briefing goes on to say, rather ironically:
“The Bill will significantly reduce the amount of time needed to make retained EU legislation fit for the UK, meaning the Government can more quickly implement the benefits of Brexit.”
Can the Minister explain to the House how it is better to be changing legislation so rapidly, seemingly with even less scrutiny than the retained legislation had in the first place? Surely the point of taking back control is to ensure that Parliament has a greater say and that we are not airbrushed. The echoes of Thomas Cromwell and Henry VIII should surely be excised from forthcoming legislation.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, wars simplify and clarify. They oblige every country involved to make choices about what its essential interests are and how to protect them. Speaking of clarity, it must be increasingly clear, even to President Putin, that he has made a massive strategic error in launching the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II. The myth of Russian military prowess has exploded. Putin’s only hope now is to avoid total humiliation and find some outcome that his propaganda machine can present as justifying his gamble. The President and people of the other combatant, Ukraine, have been magnificent. However this ends, renewed, pro-western Ukrainian nationalism will be a big factor in European politics from this time on.
I want to concentrate on the choices that western countries face as they step up to this Russian barbarism. President Biden has made an important policy shift by putting America back into leadership in deterring Russia and supporting democracy in Europe. Finland and Sweden formally applied today to join NATO. I have known that organisation since joining the UK delegation to NATO in 1978 and it has never felt more united or more purposeful. When I was the permanent representative to NATO in the early 2000s, Sweden and Finland were by far the most effective partner nations—serious defence nations but proud of their neutrality and non-alignment. However, faced with Putin’s war, each has made a profound decision based on an impressive national debate and decided to join.
Germany too has made an amazing shift in its security policy, greater than anything I can remember in the last 40 years. It will take that country time to change its pacifist culture and to re-equip the Bundeswehr, but its recognition of the need to shoulder hard-power responsibilities shows a real capacity to adapt and is a major change in the European security landscape.
Germany and other EU countries are also facing up to the disastrous policy of dependence on Russian oil and gas. Weaning themselves off that will be a long and expensive operation, but it will remove Russia’s biggest leverage over its western neighbours. The EU too has moved a long way in the last three months in stepping up to the security responsibilities to go with its economic power.
How do I think Britain is performing in reassessing our vital national interests in the new circumstances? The answer, frankly, is mixed. I give full credit to the national security response. The clear warnings from the intelligence community and our leading role in NATO and in arming Ukraine’s military—all this has been surefooted. In other areas, though, our response has been much less impressive. The Government insist on treating women and children fleeing Ukraine as potential security threats requiring the full panoply of visa controls, rather than welcoming them as refugees as Poland and Hungary have.
Putin’s war should be the perfect opportunity to put behind us the rows with the EU in the interests of a truly united western response to this massive European security threat. I gather that the discussions between the EU and the UK on sanctions against Russia have been positive and constructive; the Government have not said much about them but it is good to know that they are going on. We should push out that bridgehead to wider aspects of the crisis, including energy policy and a joint campaign to bring other countries beyond Europe to accept that their interests are at stake as well and that they too should be supporting western sanctions.
In my view, though, Ministers still seem to wear ideological blinkers that make it impossible for them ever to acknowledge that the EU does anything positive or constructive. The EU does not even seem to figure in the Foreign Secretary’s “network of liberty”, from reading her Guildhall speech; nor does it figure as a partner in our new international development strategy. I think we are in the process of missing the key opportunity to build closer working relations with the EU on international policy.
Perhaps the Minister will surprise me and tell the House that indeed we are planning to work more closely with the EU on these issues in future—but what would make that impossible would be for the Government to pursue their plan to have powers to disable part of the Northern Ireland protocol. Seen from the perspective of a major war in Europe, both the substance and timing of that are massively ill judged. If pursued, it will confirm the view in European capitals that Britain is not to be trusted. It will therefore ensure that this country has no influence in shaping the EU’s political, economic and security priorities.
I make this appeal to the Government: like Germany, Finland and Sweden, let us be bold and recognise that Putin’s war has clarified where our vital interests lie. Let us back down from the brink of a major breach with the EU and work together with EU countries for peace and stability in Europe.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who drew on his 44 years of experience in NATO for the benefit of the House. I have great sympathy with the comment by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about trying to open for an opposition party on the Queen’s Speech at this time with the unbelievable range of subjects that might be covered. In my brief five minutes I shall talk about just one. I do so against as grave a situation globally at the present time as I can remember.
It is incredible that, with the new events that have taken place, we have almost forgotten the global pandemic that threatens everybody. With global warming, the explosion of methane in the Arctic is accelerating the rate of climate change—another great drama that is coming for us. I agreed with the Governor of the Bank of England when he used the word “apocalyptic”. He used it about the scale of inflation; I shall use it about the question of food supply. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about global malnutrition. There is no question that, however many people Vladimir Putin kills in his efforts in Ukraine, it is nothing compared to the millions he may kill because of the blockage of Odessa and the prevention of proper circulation of food around the world. The number of countries now desperately worried is enormous. I understand that at the moment 25 million tonnes of grain is sitting blocked in Odessa and neighbouring areas.
Previously, grain was being shipped out at the rate of 5 million tonnes per month, so think of those countries and regions expecting to get it. I have a list: Egypt—which will now be hard-hit—Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Yemen, the Sahel, sub-Saharan Africa, Somalia and Syrian refugees in Iraq. There are riots in Iran, where food prices have gone up by 300%. You can now list the number of places that face the most serious problems. We had been worried about the threat but thought we could get supplies to them. It is now not a question of money but of whether the supplies even exist.
Against that background, who can help? One of the countries people turn to, the second-largest exporter of corn, is India. India has had very bad weather for its harvest and is now blocking all exports. Indonesia, a great source of palm oil, is now worried about supplies. Now it is blocking any exports as well. It is against that background that one sees the really serious situation. The question then is: how can we sort it out? This is where I had hoped the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, would give us an immediate answer with all his experience.
At the moment, we have to stick to the road we are on and try every way we can to get the message through to all the decent people in Russia—of whom there are millions, as I know from my experience and pleasure in visiting there in my official capacity—who are absolutely horrified. If I take one bit of recent encouragement, it is from the comments on Russian official television by Colonel Khodarenok, in which he spelled out exactly why one can admire Ukraine. The story we hear is that Putin thinks Ukraine is a fake country with no right to exist. Colonel Khodarenok said that it showed very clearly that the people of Ukraine see themselves as defending their motherland. Their commitment to that shows why they are doing so much better against many Russians who do not have the slightest idea why they are there and meant to be fighting.
The other serious consequence is that with starvation comes migration. Many countries have been worried about the amount of migration—and mass migration—in the world. That may be as nothing compared to what is about to happen, because there are simply not the supplies. Food supplies are blocked and countries that were already on the edge will go over it; if you do not get out of those countries, you have not got a hope for your lives and futures.
I am sorry to give rather a sombre speech, but I believe that the lead the United Kingdom Government have given with other allies shows that we have to face Ukraine; we have to give it all the support we can. We have to reopen Odessa and make Russia sufficiently ashamed of what it is doing—murdering millions of people in the rest of the world. We must get some real impact out of that as well.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, in less than three months of fighting Russia has lost one-third of the ground combat force it committed to the invasion of Ukraine. Every wrecked Russian tank—taken out by light anti-tank weapons deployed with minimum training, unslung in seconds from the shoulder and deadly accurate—is further evidence that traditional armies can no longer expect to dominate simply because they have more troops, weapons and money. As weapons have become smaller, more effective and widely dispersed, it has become harder and harder for traditional militaries effectively to achieve their aims through brute force, as they meet resistance at every turn. Resistance in this case includes information warfare, hacking and cyber- attacks, as well as social media, which President Zelensky excels at, casting the conflict in terms of good and evil and projecting an aura of invincibility.
Our own experience in Iraq and Afghanistan underscores the reality of contemporary warfare: that invasion and occupation is more expensive and temporary than it is quick and permanent. As always, the future belongs to those who embrace it and, in this context, who empower the decentralisation of weapons technology, information currency and individual ingenuity and courage.
Less has been said about the use of artificial intelligence in the Ukraine war than about anti-tank missiles but in April, a senior Defense Department official said that the Pentagon—quietly—is using AI and machine-learning tools to analyse vast amounts of data, generate useful battlefield intelligence and learn about Russian tactics and strategy. Just how much the US is passing to Ukraine is a matter for conjecture and I shall not do that. A powerful Russian drone with AI capabilities has been spotted in Ukraine. Meanwhile, Ukraine has itself employed the use of a controversial facial recognition technology. Prime Minister Fedorov told Reuters that it had been using Clearview AI—software that uses facial recognition—to discover the social media profiles of deceased Russian soldiers, which authorities then use to notify their relatives and offer arrangements for their bodies to be recovered.
If the technology can be used to identify live as well as dead enemy soldiers, it could also be incorporated into systems that use automated decision-making to direct lethal force. This is not a remote possibility; last year, the UN reported that an autonomous drone had killed people in Libya in 2020. There are unconfirmed reports of autonomous weapons already being used in Ukraine. We are seeing a rapid trend towards increasing autonomy in weapons systems. AI and computational methods are allowing machines to make more and more decisions themselves.
Our Government see AI as playing an important role in the future of warfighting. The integrated review, presenting AI and other scientific advances as “battle-winning technologies”, set out their priority for
“identifying, funding, developing and deploying new technologies and capabilities faster than our potential adversaries”.
There is an urgent need for strategic leadership by government and for scrutiny by Parliament, as AI plays an increasing role in the changing landscape of war. We need UK leadership to establish, domestically and internationally, when it is ethically and legally appropriate to delegate to a machine autonomous decision-making about when to take an individual’s life.
The development of LAWS is not inevitable, and an international legal instrument would play a major role in controlling their use. In the absence of an international ban, it is inevitable that, eventually, these weapons will be used against UK citizens or soldiers. Advocating international regulation would not be abandoning the military potential of new technology; it is needed on AWS to give our industry guidance to be a sci-tech super- power without undermining our security and values. Weapons that are not aligned with our values must not be used to defend our values. We should not be asking our honourable service personnel to use immoral weapons.
The war in Ukraine has brought home the tragic human consequences of ongoing conflict. The use of LAWS in future conflicts and the lack of clear accountability for the decisions made pose serious complications and challenges for post-conflict resolution and peacebuilding. The way in which these weapons might be used and the human rights challenges they present are novel and unknown; the existing laws of war were not designed to cope with such situations and, on their own, are not enough to control the use of future autonomous weapons systems.
The integrated review pledged to
“publish a Defence AI strategy”.
More than a year later, there is still no sign of it. The Government’s delay in publishing the strategy while the technology is outpacing us means that the UK is unprepared to deal with the ethical, legal and practical challenges presented by autonomous weapons systems today.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, I will discuss trade and our relations with the European Union, matters which are integral to our domestic, economic and political health, as well as the wider international picture.
Some Labour voices urge us to stop talking about Brexit. Why on earth would we do that? Brexit is not done; it was a profound mistake, the dire consequences of which are becoming more evident every day. According to the polls, the public now increasingly recognises this. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment is that UK-EU imports and exports have suffered a 15% cut since Brexit—as one would expect after leaving our biggest and most profitable market. Other authoritative forecasts are even more pessimistic. The effect of this will be to further increase inflation—already forecast to rise to a disastrous 10%—weaken the pound, force an increase in interest rates, lower investment and likely worsen our depressingly low productivity. Any valuable opportunities of international co-operation have been, or will be, lost, such as the Erasmus programme. Brexit has not only severely weakened our economy and influence in the world, but, to a lesser extent, that of the EU as a whole. At a time of Russian aggression, the growing influence of China and uncertainties about the future leadership of the United States, a strong EU is needed to play a vital part in supporting freedom and justice in the world.
Macron has made an imaginative proposal to build a stronger Europe based on a political community, and we should show that we share this aim. What, then, should our policy be? Applying to re-join the European Union tomorrow is clearly unrealistic, but we should start to rebuild the closest possible relationships with it. As part of this, I believe that we should propose a bold move: to re-join the European single market. This would have profound and important political implications. The biggest immediate advantage of re-joining the European single market is that it would solve the apparently insoluble problem of the Northern Ireland protocol. It is not surprising that there is such a strong reaction to a border in the Irish Sea in Northern Ireland, as well as among British businesses. Johnson vowed that no British Prime Minister would ever impose a border; then he did so and boasted that the protocol was a great deal. Re-joining the European single market would avoid borders between any part of the UK and the Republic of Ireland because we would all be members of the European single market. Furthermore, it would save the Good Friday agreement.
However, this will need a sea change in government: no more contempt for the rule of law, domestic as well as international, and no more threats to repeal international treaties we have solemnly signed—although it seems that the Government are about to legislate to make such threats a reality, which can only exacerbate our relationship with the EU. By contrast, re-joining the European single market would symbolise a new relationship with the European Union and demonstrate that we are serious about Macron’s aim of a stronger Europe. We desperately need a new Government. As the Observer pointed out on Sunday, the best hope for this, in light of the recent elections, is a Labour Government with strong support from the Liberal Democrats and Greens—and possibly even from dissident Tory remainers. This would not be another coalition but a pro-European alliance. Re-joining the European single market should be a central part of the strategy of this alliance.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I imagine that, a few months ago, many people would have expected the debate on this year’s gracious Speech to be conducted in air of optimism as we emerged from the shadow of Covid and looked forward to continuing economic recovery. Instead, we find ourselves confronted by a war in Europe and its consequences for our own security. However, I fear that at the moment we are not paying sufficient attention to those consequences. We are rightly focused on providing all possible assistance to Ukraine as it resists Russian aggression, but we cannot postpone a consideration of the wider lessons of the invasion. The implications for our future security are far too profound for us to delay such an analysis.
To my mind, there are three strategic conclusions that we should draw from the events of recent months. The first is, alas, an old lesson—the unbounded capacity of the future to surprise us, usually in very unpleasant ways. International crises, and the armed conflicts that sometimes flow from them, have seldom been anticipated, nor have we been well prepared to meet them. Since no one has a functioning crystal ball, we will no doubt continue to make wrong judgments about the future, so we must expect to be surprised by it and develop military structures and capabilities that will provide us with sufficient agility, adaptability and sustainability to cope with the unforeseen. But we can do that only if we are prepared to make the necessary level of investment—something we are currently failing to do. Despite recent increases, our defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP has not even recovered to its 2010 level, and current rates of inflation will rapidly erode its effectiveness. In such a dangerous world, we simply have to do better.
The second issue that I want to touch on is the security impact of globalisation. The drive for commercial advantage that led to lean manufacturing, just-in-time logistics, outsourcing and offshoring and many other such developments has brought significant benefits to western consumers. But we are seeing now how such dependence can constrain our actions in a crisis. In an interconnected world, security cannot be about just military power and economic strength. It must also be about our ability to sustain our economic and social structures in the face of severe disruption to global connections. We have to strike a much better balance between short-term economic advantage and sustained national resilience. As a starting point, perhaps we should consider introducing a national equivalent to the kinds of stress tests that were mandated for banks in the wake of the global financial crisis.
The final lesson—another one that we seem to have to relearn every few decades—is that autocracies are very dangerous things. The lack of constraint on their leaders means that they can, at least in the short term, act very quickly in ways that create huge threats to peace and stability. Putin is therefore not just a dangerous individual; he is a personification of the risks we run if we fail to confront autocracies from the outset. For too many years, we pandered to him, and we are now paying the price. We should not make the same mistake with other regimes.
The elephant in this particular room is clearly China, which is moving back along the road to autocracy. At the same time, it is engaged in a sustained effort to reshape the international order to its own advantage. As some have observed, China is seeking to make the world safe for autocracy. When it seeks to unbalance the rules on which we rely for our own security and prosperity, we must be prepared to contest it. But, if we are to do that successfully, we must expect China to respond vigorously in support of what it sees as its own national interest. Those responses may well include the use of draconian economic, commercial and technological measures intended to sway and possibly coerce those on the other side of the argument. Again, therefore, we must ensure that we have the necessary resilience within our societies to withstand such assaults.
The Government must act on these lessons, and they must act immediately. I hope that, in winding up, the Minister will commit to this. We do of course face many domestic challenges, but, if the Government fail in their first duty to provide for the security of their citizens, all else will be for naught. The challenge on that front is here and now; it needs to be met here and now.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a very real privilege to follow a very wise speech, and I would hope that the Prime Minister has on his desk even now a piece of paper with three words on it: “belt”, “road” and “Solomon Islands”—although Solomon Islands is two words. The threat to which the noble and gallant Lord has just referred is the underlying real threat that we should all bear in mind.
When I listened to the Speech, with some sympathy for the Prince of Wales, last week, I was reminded of the famous story of Churchill being presented with a pudding at a great dinner at the Savoy and saying, “Take it away—it has no theme”. Yet as I read the Speech, and as I listened to the very remarkable speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on Thursday, I realised that of course there is an underlying theme: a shift in the balance between Parliament and the Executive—and that is something of which we have to be ever aware. As the Bills come before us—38 of them—and the baubles are hung on these Christmas tree Bills, we have a particular duty in your Lordships’ House. That duty, really, is to sustain the rule of law.
My noble friend Lord Grimstone, in a very agreeable opening speech, referred to the importance of the rule of law, and then made some references to Northern Ireland. You cannot be an exemplar of the rule of law if you ignore it, abrogate it, or amend it in an arbitrary fashion. There is a particular responsibility here, which we have had before during the passage of a certain European Bill in your Lordships’ House, and we have to be very aware of that. The Prime Minister very rightly wants this country to be looked on as a leader. A leader has to be an exemplar. We have to show that we are worthy of leadership, and to be worthy of leadership we have to set an example of being a country that always upholds the rule of law—that does the very things that Mr Putin would never think of doing.
We have to listen to what President Zelensky—that remarkable clown turned into a great national leader—says, and we have to give him every assistance we can, as we are doing. I am grateful to the Government for that; we all are. There is wholesale unity in this House and the other place on that. But, in making sure, insofar as we are able, that President Zelensky is not defeated, we also have to heed those very wise words in yesterday’s Times leader, which said, in effect, that we cannot and must not dictate to President Zelensky as and when the time is right for peace negotiations. That is not our duty. We must encourage and sustain, and we must always have in mind realistic possibilities. At the very least, we must make sure, as far as we can, that President Zelensky is able to retain the frontiers that existed on 23 February this year. If he is able to go beyond that, we support him, but we have to be very careful.
It is very good that NATO is about to expand. I have a great love for Finland, and although I do not know Sweden so well—I have been several times—they are wonderful exemplars of freedom themselves. They will bring a great deal to NATO, and we must welcome them with open arms. But we must again remember that we have to accept the logic of NATO expansion, which is—as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made plain in his speech—a greater defence expenditure. Security does not come on the cheap. The prime duty of any Government, member of a great alliance or not, is to ensure the safety of its people, and we would be neglecting our duty if we did not urge the Government to increase defence expenditure wisely and give them every possible support if they heed that call.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow my noble friend Lord Cormack in what is my first opportunity to speak in this Chamber since my departure from government in December. I begin by endorsing the Government’s intention, as set out in the gracious Speech, to
“address the most pressing global security challenges”
and, in particular, to
“continue to invest in Her Majesty’s gallant Armed Forces”.
The world is an unusually dangerous place at the moment, as many have said, and the contribution of this country is crucial.
I make two points on the issues regarding Brexit that have been raised by many noble Lords. First, before we left the European Union, many argued that we would inevitably be marginalised in global affairs after Brexit—I think that they have been proven wrong, and I give just a few examples. We have raised defence spending well above the 2% of GDP limit; I agree with those who have said that more needs to come, I think it should and I expect that it will. We have moved our policy on China significantly to a much tougher place though, again, there is probably further to go there. We have taken the lead, given our historical responsibilities to Hong Kong, in offering very generous resettlement to people from Hong Kong. The AUKUS arrangements show that we still bring strength and capabilities to foreign and defence policy that many other countries do not.
We got it right on Ukraine earlier than most; we judged correctly that arming Ukraine would make a difference to the outcome. In fact, the UK is the second largest donor of military aid behind only the US; we are the biggest in Europe. With our friends in central and eastern Europe, we have spoken up clearly about the principles involved in this war, such as that of resisting Russian aggression, in contrast to the equivocation that we have seen from some other places. The agreements that we reached last week with Sweden and Finland show that British policies, British capabilities and British influence still count for a lot.
On trade policy, despite the many predictions that we would not be able to establish a national trade policy, the Government have in fact rolled over nearly all the EU trade agreements, improving some, and negotiated two new agreements with Australia and New Zealand, with more to come. I hope that we will be a member of the CPTPP very soon. There is also the real prospect, I hope, of an agreement with India.
I always argued that, on foreign policy and in trade, the gain from being able to act decisively and quickly around clear principles and to lead and encourage others would outweigh any loss of influence on the EU’s collective policy—I think that has been proven. We have not had to spend endless hours in the EU’s foreign policy, trade and energy Councils seeking vainly to persuade others and then submitting ourselves to a lowest common denominator policy. We have acted quickly and, very often, others have followed us.
Secondly, on Northern Ireland, which again many noble Lords have raised, I just want to make a few points. We are told that fixing very obvious problems with the Northern Ireland protocol will cause huge and irreparable damage to our foreign relations and international reputation. I do not agree with that, of course. Any observer can see that the protocol is undermining the Belfast agreement and weakening the Government’s ability to govern Northern Ireland. Any observer can see that it needs fixing. There is no need for a trade war; if it comes, it will not be our choice, I guess. Some argue that the war in Ukraine makes it the wrong moment to address this question; on the contrary, the great events that are under way make it all the more important for us to fix the issues that are dividing western countries. To me, it makes it all the more surprising and disappointing that the EU will not help us to solve this problem and continues to be so unconstructive.
I therefore welcome the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in the other place yesterday. There is no alternative to proceeding as she suggests. I urge the Government to move quickly with the proposed legislation, and I hope that this House will not frustrate it when it is so important to the unity of this country. Of course it is right that we should remain open to negotiation. A negotiated settlement would still be better but, in my experience, only clarity about objectives and robustness in presenting them gets results. Knowing the Foreign Secretary, I am sure that that is how she will intend to proceed.
To conclude, under this Government we are standing up for our country’s unity, its integrity and its international reputation. A free Britain counts for something in the world again and long may it remain so.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, commenting on last year’s Queen’s Speech, I expressed delight that the Government said they would increase the size of the Royal Navy and appeared to be taking shipbuilding seriously. Since then, there have been no ship orders. Yes, a refreshed shipbuilding strategy was produced, but without orders and action our fleet will continue to shrink and UK shipbuilding to decline. There is no doubt the Royal Navy is too small. The Government have admitted it. The number of frigates, already dangerously low, will continue to fall year on year for another five years.
The three fleet solid support ships that we were told in the gracious Speech three years ago were about to be ordered have still not been. Can the Minister confirm that they will be built in British yards? The crucial ocean research ship has still not been ordered. Ditto the national flagship. What of replacements for RFA “Argus” and HMS “Scott”? Will they be ordered in the UK? The UK shipbuilding enterprise requires a strong order book to be able to invest for the long term and improve its competitiveness. It needs a rolling programme and a more strategic approach to procurement, facilitating access to finance. At the moment, I am afraid, it is just words.
Seven years ago, I spoke in this House about Russia: Putin’s unacceptable actions in Crimea and Ukraine, threats to the Baltic states, cyberattacks against NATO nations, aggressive intrusion into NATO airspace and Russian nuclear submarines threatening our ballistic missile submarines. I expressed concern over Putin’s loose talk about nuclear weapons. I stressed that he understood hard power and looked very carefully at who was actually purchasing it. Western nations, including the UK, seemed to be giving up their hard-power capability. Putin noticed that and drew conclusions about lack of defence spending and a consequent lack of willingness to fight for what the West believed in.
There seems to be a belief in government that future wars will be fought solely in cyberspace, using advanced technologies such as AI and quantum computing, and that there is no need for military equipment and numbers. That is dangerously simplistic nonsense. Clearly, those new things are very important to the way we fight, but you need more than that. Many of us who have warned of chronic underfunding have been told time and again that we were wrong. The reality is that our Armed Forces are too weak to prevent war—which is the important thing about armed forces; that they prevent war if they are strong enough—and when war happens, which I am afraid it will, they will lack the equipment and manpower to keep us safe. Our Navy, Army and Air Force are too small. They lack the ability to withstand inevitable attrition and are insufficiently equipped with state-of-the-art, fully maintained weapons and sufficient war stocks for the inevitably high war usage rates that we know happen, as we can see in Ukraine at the moment.
There is now war in Europe and there are big promises in this Queen’s Speech:
“Her Majesty’s Government will lead the way in championing security around the world”
and
“play a leading role in defending democracy and freedom … including continuing to support the people of Ukraine”—
which I think we have done well—and ensuring
“the integrity of the United Kingdom’s borders and … the safety of its people.”
Goodness me—it is quite a thing to achieve all that. How do the Government intend to do it in what has become a highly dangerous world, possibly on the brink of world war? I quote, as has been said already:
“It will continue to invest in Her Majesty’s gallant Armed Forces.”
Wow. With war in Europe, how underwhelming is that?
If Ministers get defence wrong, the nation will never forgive them. The costs in blood and treasure are enormous. Studies have shown that the plan to pay off HMS “Endurance” for a saving of £16 million in 1981 prompted the Argentinians to invade the Falkland Islands, at a final cost to our country of £6 billion and 300 people killed. The Government have a choice over whether we spend what is required to ensure the safety of our nation in defence terms—to look after our dependencies and our people—or not. At present, I believe they are getting the choice wrong. In 1990, with a GDP 46% less than today, the Royal Navy was three times as large. The decline in military capability is a choice—and not one we should have made in a highly chaotic and dangerous world. With war raging in Europe, there is a need for an immediate uplift in defence spending to at least 3% of GDP. I believe the Government should act now.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I think the best thing that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, could do is grant the noble Lord, Lord West, some more boats. He has made a very cogent case.
Baroness Northover (LD)
Ships—and submarines, if you like.
It is an honour to follow a few speakers behind my noble friend Lord Taverne. His career has been marked by bravery, not his own political advancement. He always recognised the EU as a project for peace. How right he was and is. That peace project remains vital still on our continent, as we have heard. I note that Ukraine had no desire to join Russia, even before Putin’s aggression. It looks towards the EU and NATO for its future. It also recognises that there is only so much a sovereign nation, however brave, can do by itself.
We have seen what can happen when you have an unchallenged and brutal autocrat in power. It is not surprising that people have drawn parallels to Hitler and now sound warnings about the Chinese leadership. However, while the reaction of Europeans, the US and others has been remarkable, we need to bear in mind that in some parts of the world they shrug their shoulders and wonder why their own plight, for example in Syria, never got such engagement. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord King, so rightly said, they are likely to be affected by increasing famine.
The Queen’s Speech states that the Government
“will play a leading role in defending democracy and freedom across the world”.
How do they plan to do that? Or, in reality, having pulled out of Afghanistan, unable to stay when the US went home, powerless in Hong Kong despite a treaty lodged at the UN giving us rights and responsibilities, and with decreasing support at the UN as a result of leaving the EU, how feasible is the Government’s so-called pivot to the Pacific? How trusted can we be as a partner when countries, not just Lib Dems, are sure that we are threatening to break international law over the Northern Ireland protocol—an agreement which the Prime Minister said was part of his oven-ready Brexit, an excellent deal?
Consistency is not a feature of this Government. We hear that we will seize opportunities from leaving the EU but thus far the result is increased trade friction. We say we champion international trade, and we support free trade arrangements across Africa modelled on the EU, and yet we left the world’s most successful trading bloc. We hear that we will build on our scientific successes, but the Government fail to recognise the long-term damage we are doing to that sector, international in its essence. Why did they think we would be able to cherry pick with Horizon, for example, when leading scientists warned otherwise?
We certainly need innovation. We face the existential threat of climate change. Yet there is little evidence that this is recognised right across government, to judge by the submissions received by your Lordships’ Select Committee on climate change, on which I serve. The BEIS unit is being scaled back post COP 26 and moved to the FCDO, where it seems it will form part of the attempt to increase the UK’s influence rather than focus on what is required globally. This is of course in keeping with the Government’s new international development strategy, which was not introduced by a Minister in Parliament but just delayed and then dropped in on us.
Development should be focused on the long term, promoting global security, stability and prosperity, not donors’ short-term political interests. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed out, in effect this strategy links aid and trade. It uses aid as a foreign policy instrument even though we deplore, for example, China’s such use. It leads the Government to emphasise the bilateral over the multilateral, even though multilateral organisations can have the most impact, prioritising need and not whether a trade deal is better secured. It was a strand of Conservative thinking in 2010 that multilateral institutions were a waste of money. Andrew Mitchell commissioned a review, and it was those multilateral institutions that scored the highest.
Clearly, the Government should be judged by their actions, not words. That is why, when the Queen’s Speech said that the Government would defend the constitution, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, gave a rather hollow laugh. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, sometimes the success of foreign policy, defence or international trade will depend on people using their foreign language skills, either as an integral part of their main job, such as diplomats, or as specialist translators and interpreters. I declare my interest as co-chair of the APPG on Modern Languages and vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.
It is to the UK’s credit that linguistic expertise is seen as a particular strength of British diplomacy, with about 500 speaker slots attracting training in 46 languages. This investment is paying off, with exam passes at C1 level increasing substantially. Will the Minister confirm that this investment will be sustained and that we will respond to the need for language skills in development as well as in diplomacy?
I pay tribute to the work of Translators without Borders, TWB, the world’s largest network of humanitarian linguists. Its current work in Ukraine has exposed language gaps in official communications on critical issues such as safe travel routes and asylum procedures, which people may need in Ukrainian or Russian, or indeed in more than a dozen minority languages of Ukraine. TWB conveys accurate information in the right languages but also identifies deliberate misinformation intended to confuse or mislead. With a re-established UK embassy in Ukraine, can the Minister ensure that our staff there know about TWB and make use of its resources?
Worldwide, TWB has responded to the vulnerability of women and children to trafficking, sexual exploitation and abuse with a multilingual glossary covering 208 terms, available in 29 languages. I applaud HMG’s consistent high profile on preventing sexual abuse in conflict as a central pillar of foreign policy and ask the Minister to ensure that all our officials, across the world, are aware of and use this unique TWB resource, which I suggest should be presented at the forthcoming global conference that we will host.
In relation to Ukraine, there has been criticism recently of HMG for not having enough Russian speakers on the books and that this has weakened our capacity to predict, assess and respond to events. In a Written Answer to me in February, the Minister said:
“Almost 60 FCDO staff members have passed Russian examinations at C1 … level in the last five years.”
Can he say whether in hindsight this is enough and what, if any, plans are in place to sustain or expand this expertise?
Building capacity in language skills at home is one thing, but the experience of civilian interpreters in conflict zones is another. Can the Minister update the House on his discussions at the UN on progress towards securing a Security Council resolution on the protection of civilian interpreters in conflict zones? The plight of the Afghan interpreters brought this issue sharply to light, but the need for additional protection is not confined to Afghanistan, nor to interpreters working with the Armed Forces. As a member of the P5 and the Group of Friends of the Protection of Civilians, the UK has serious influence; I hope the Minister will assure the House that he will support the efforts of the Spanish mission at the UN at the forthcoming meeting of the Group of Friends.
Finally and briefly, on the economic value of languages for international trade, is the DIT aware of the recent research from Cambridge University showing that if the UK invested more in teaching French, Spanish, Mandarin and Arabic, we could increase our exports by up to £19 billion a year? In the SME sector, there is already good evidence that language skills add 30% in value to export growth.
The Great website has improved the profile of languages and translation services are now listed as an eligible activity for the internationalisation fund, but can the Minister say whether language and intercultural skills are an explicit priority of the remit of UK trade commissioners? There is much more to be said on the issues I have raised, but I look forward to the replies from the Minister on the ones I have had time to include today.
Baroness Davidson of Lundin Links (Con)
My Lords, we have heard a great deal about the situation in Ukraine and how that has affected the military, diplomatic and development assumptions on which current policy decisions have been made. I want to talk particularly about the military aspect and a specific strain within it. The noble Lord, Lord West, spoke about the size of the Navy; I want to talk about the Army.
Last year, we had an Army review called Future Soldier. The promotional spiel was all about increasing force “agility”, but the substance was about cutting numbers—again. We have been here before, from Options for Change in 1990, which cut force strength by 18%; to the 1998 strategic defence review, which shaved a quarter off the Territorial Army, reducing it to 42,000; and the Army 2020 restructuring, brought out in 2010, with regulars cut again, down to 82,000, and another quarter off the reserves, reducing that strength to 30,000. Now we are heading for a standing Regular Army of just 73,000 troops, and the MoD’s current quarterly personnel statistics on its website tell us that the trained strength of the Army Reserve is down to 26,350 soldiers.
I am not standing here to dump on the review. Indeed, there is much in it to be recommended, such as adapting to the use of technology. There is a recognition that, as tempting as it might be for Ministers, simply sending Special Forces to do everything is not sustainable and, therefore, that—despite the highly dubious Americanism of calling them Rangers regiments—having an all-arms force that is trained and retained in a state of high readiness for deployment is logical, just as the ability of soldiers to progress their careers by moving between their own corps and such a force has obvious benefits for professional development and troop retention. There is still a huge question over numbers and stretch. To be a good ally and world power, we need at all times to be able to deploy an expeditionary force of brigade strength at minimum.
Four years ago, the US Defense Secretary, General Jim Mattis, warned of his concern that Britain’s
“ability to continue to provide this critical military foundation for diplomatic success is at risk of erosion”.
He continued:
“A global nation like the UK, with interests and commitments around the world, will require a level of defense spending beyond what we would expect from allies with only regional interests.”
The occupants of the White House and No. 10 may have changed in the past four years, but we still need to be able to show that we are a reliable and capable partner on the world stage. That is why it matters less, frankly, what we here think of the planned troop reductions but more what those military commanders and international partners think.
That is why the intervention from the outgoing Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, needs to be listened to. We need to listen when the man charged with leading the Army says that he is
“not comfortable with an Army of just 73,000. It’s too small.”
It is the smallest standing Army we have had since Charles II established one in the 1660s. What I found more worrying about General Carleton-Smith’s intervention was not just the admission that it was sprung on him and Army chiefs because it was never their plan, but when he revealed the rationale for it. He says that
“it’s a bit of an arbitrary figure because it’s just a price point.”
We must be better than that. We must treat our service personnel better than that. We must live up to our international obligations with a fighting force big enough to be worthy of the name.
I know that a much-needed equipment update is happening and that that is expensive, and I agree with the Secretary of State for Defence when he says that the Army’s land fleet is “woefully behind its peers” and needs a serious upgrade. As it happens, I think Ben Wallace is one of the shining lights in this Cabinet—clear-eyed and getting on with the job. Indeed, I also praise the Prime Minister for setting and embodying our approach in supporting Ukraine in deed as well as in word. But it strikes me that part of the Future Soldier review was predicated on an assumption that large-scale conventional force invasion of a European ally—such as we have seen by Russia in Ukraine—was low on our risk register. Indeed, General Carleton-Smith confirmed that
“the surprise was that Putin went all-in at very significant scale”
and in a very crude, conventional, old-style manner, whereas the intelligence had suggested a more hybrid, disruptive approach of
“bots as well as boots”.
We come back to my first point, that the situation in Ukraine has changed everything. It has altered the military, diplomatic and development assumptions on which current policy decisions—many of them brought forward in the Loyal Address—have been made. It has redrawn the map and we need to respond the world as it is now, not as it was when decisions that already seem out of date were made. I contend that shaving nearly 10,000 troops from our military roll and reducing our army to its lowest number for more than 350 years is one of those decisions that needs to be revisited.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I will focus on the need for international decarbonisation, and how the UK can have an impact abroad, largely through our overseas development aid and export finance.
We may account for only around 1% of global emissions, but nearly one-third of emissions are from countries with 1% of emissions or less, so that does not excuse us from action. Moreover, the statistics on historical emissions show that we rank fifth, after the US, China, Russia and Germany. Climate change and the heating of our planet stem from the Industrial Revolution, so although we do now emit less than some other nations, we none the less have a historic duty to take action. Self-interest also dictates that we should do so. It does not matter if a tonne of CO2 is emitted in London, Mumbai or Shanghai; it all goes into the same atmosphere and has the same impact. That is why it is so important to rapidly use all the levers available to us to reduce emissions globally.
Traditionally, we punched higher than our weight as a large provider of overseas aid. It is now vital that this is used to tackle arguably the greatest crisis that the world has ever faced. The international development strategy published this week describes, in the first paragraph of its executive summary, climate change and biodiversity as two of the largest global challenges we face. It says we will support the recommendations of the Dasgupta review and that from 2023 ODA spending will be aligned with the Paris Agreement. This is most welcome. The strategy says that British International Investment—BII, which is the newly branded CDC and a wholly owned subsidiary of the FCDO—has set a target of 30% of new commitments over five years to be in climate finance. Of course, any money going into climate finance is extremely welcome, but can the Minister give an assurance that the other 70% of investments will not be in any way working against that 30%? Can he confirm that money will never go towards companies which are involved in environmentally damaging practices? The investment criteria for 2022-26 state that the CDC—now the BII—will not invest capital in fossil fuel subsectors that it has classified as misaligned with the Paris Agreement. This should mean we make absolutely no new investments in fossil fuels; as the International Energy Agency’s analysis indicates, there can be no additional fossil fuels if we are to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. Can the Minister please confirm that this is the case?
The strategy says also that we should deliver “honest and reliable investment”, but we cannot say we are doing so if any of that investment is in assets which increase emissions instead of reducing them. Africa, where the BII invests much of its capital, will be on the front line of the ravages of climate change. It is not Africa’s longer-term interest if we use taxpayers’ money to invest in the dirty technologies of the past, such as the £1 billion of UK export finance which is currently committed to the Mozambique gas pipeline.
Although it is well known that coal is the dirtiest of fuels—the coal phase-out was agreed in Glasgow last year—it is less well known that, according to the IEA, new coal infrastructure will be used for many years unless we intervene, and quickly. The average age of coal plants in Asia is currently 11 years but their usual life expectancy is 40 years, so we need to mobilise investment in clean energy in developing countries and help these nations shut down their dirty technology.
I regret the omission from the gracious Speech of a return to 0.7% of GNI for overseas development aid. I am sure the Minister will agree that, were this to happen, we could greatly increase the programmes to reduce carbon emissions and prevent climate change announced in the international development strategy published this week. I hope he will agree when he replies.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, given the calm and cloistered nature of this debate, I cannot but reflect on the fact that, elsewhere, the medieval barbarism of Russia continues, with saturation artillery and bombing, rape, murder, looting and torture. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that Finland and Sweden wish to join NATO. They will make a contribution to our collective defence but that contribution will be mirrored by an additional responsibility for us because, in the event of an Article 5 situation, we would be obliged to go to their assistance. That is why I say that, faced with obligations of that nature, we require adequate materiel and resources to fulfil our responsibilities. I am part of the increasing group of people who say that you cannot fulfil these responsibilities on 2% of GDP. As it happens, a fortnight ago I visited the manufacturers of the F-35 in Texas. They would like to know when we will buy the nearly 100 additional F-35s that we previously indicated we intended to purchase.
The United Kingdom has been one of the most supportive actors in the fate of Ukraine. However, we must face reality here as well because we will be here for the long haul. This is not going to be over by Christmas or any similar expression of hope; this will be a long and drawn-out process. In the course of it, the fact of our support will, in a sense, turn into a continuing obligation, politically, militarily and economically. We will always try to ensure that there is no outbreak of sympathy fatigue.
Against that background, it seems rather curious that we now have this domestic political disturbance— a distraction from our major obligations, one may think, but it does have foreign policy interest. Why are the sympathetic Irish supporters of Congress following these activities so closely? We forget just how strongly the Irish connection is felt on Capitol Hill; this has foreign policy behind it. While I am talking about America, what happened to the famous trade arrangement we were promised, which was going to solve all our problems and be much more substantial and effective than anything we ever had with the European Union?
Yesterday, I sought to persuade the Minister responding to the debate that, in Belfast, the DUP has issued an ultimatum to the United Kingdom Government while, at Westminster, the United Kingdom Government have issued an ultimatum to the European Union. The Minister refused to accept that parallel. Let me put it more colloquially: if I say, “Do what we want or we’ll do what you don’t want”, that is an ultimatum—and we have two of them side by side.
There has been some reflection on the conduct of the Prime Minister in the creation of the protocol. Some have described it as ineptitude while others have called it bad faith. It matters not to me; the question is one of responsibility and the status of the document. If the EU sought to do to the United Kingdom something of a similar nature to what we are seeking to do to the EU, the Prime Minister would be shouting “Pacta sunt servanda” in his dreams. Unilateral change is illegal in international law. I believe that the Attorney-General has given the opposite opinion; I should rather like to see that opinion, if I may. Publish or be damned. In my view, the issue is beyond doubt because the Government have not fully explored the provisions of the treaty itself under Article 16. If we embark on the course that the Government are urging upon us, who will ever trust us again?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The Queen’s Speech said that we
“will lead the way in championing security around the world.”
In “Yes Minister”, the Permanent Secretary would have said, “Very bold, Minister”. It is quite a bold assertion. We used to be good at understatement. Conservative Foreign Secretaries such as Alec Douglas-Home, Peter Carrington, Geoffrey Howe and Douglas Hurd tended to speak rather softly, although they still carried quite a big stick. They tended to get their way. The stick is now a little smaller, as the noble Baroness, Lady Davidson, convincingly reminded us, but we seem to be shouting rather loudly and not getting our way quite so often.
I want us to be trusted. Trust is quite a good thing to have. I want people to believe that, if they conclude a deal with us, that deal is likely to stick. This makes it easier to conclude a deal. I would like people to think it unthinkable that we would break a treaty commitment and start a trade war. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Frost—I am sorry he is not here to hear it—that this House still champions the rule of law. I think we showed that during the passage of the then internal market Bill and, if we have to, we will show it again in connection with a Brexit Bill.
The Queen’s Speech does not say anything at all about development; the noble Lord, Lord Collins, was absolutely right to pick that up. The slick brochure published by the Foreign Office this week is unconvincing and alarming. It is alarming because it is clear that we are switching aid away from multilateral to bilateral, back to more tied aid. We will give less support to the international agencies fighting the causes of global insecurity, such as famine, disease, unrest and mass migration. Three out of every four cross-channel migrants and refugees come from a country fighting severe famine right now, but it seems from the Foreign Office publication that we plan to cut back on what we do to stem the flow at source—although, of course, the Queen’s Speech said that we will be hard on refugees. Apart from the moral imperative, is it not in our self-interest to do more, not less, through the multilateral agencies?
The noble Lord, Lord King, was absolutely right—as he usually is—in pointing to the imminence of the global famine. It is here already, but it is going to get much worse. Before Putin’s invasion, 80% of Egypt’s wheat came from the Black Sea; 75% of Sudan’s; 75% of Lebanon’s; 50% of Libya’s; and 50% of Tunisia’s. Global stocks were already at their lowest for seven years. The World Food Programme was already telling us that we were facing an unprecedented global hunger crisis before Putin’s invasion. As the noble Lord, Lord King, pointed out, protectionism in India and Indonesia —export bans—means that it is not just wheat that will be in very short supply in the Middle East. There are 9 million people in Tigray who are starving right now. The WFP says that there will be 20 million in Sudan within three months.
Should we not be urgently doing more, not less, for the WFP, the FAO, the UNDP, the UNHCR and the WHO? The WHO says that Covid has already killed 6 million and is still killing 1,000 a day. Those are probably underestimates, because the statistics are patchy. Some 75% of us are fully vaccinated, but only 23% are in Uganda, 19% in Ghana, 6% in Tanzania and 5% in Malawi. These disparities shame and threaten us. Do we not owe it to our Commonwealth friends and to ourselves to do more to help them do better?
It is not just them. In tragic, war-torn, blockaded Yemen, only 1% of the population has been vaccinated at all. Are we using our undoubted influence in Riyadh to persuade the Saudis that lives must be saved in the Yemen? I hope so, but I do not know.
The key global responder is the WHO. Some 80% of its finance comes from voluntary national contributions. Are we up there as global leaders showing the way? No, we are way down the pack. Up at the top are Germany and Japan; we are down with New Zealand. Global Australia contributes more than global Britain; the Gates Foundation contributes more than global Britain. Should we not put that right? It is a global pandemic and, if we aspire to be champions of global security and lead the way, should we not be doing something about global insecurity and its root causes?
My last point harkens back to my first. When working in Washington and Brussels, I was lucky enough to witness a virtuous circle: the more the White House trusted us, particularly because of our policies on Northern Ireland through John Major and Tony Blair, the more our perceived influence in Washington strengthened our hand in Brussels—and the more we were seen to deliver on common purposes with our friends in Europe, the more the White House listened to us. I worry about the very real risk of a vicious circle, which works the other way. Picking fights with the 27, particularly over Northern Ireland, is the best way of losing friends in Washington. The more we drift away from both Europe and America—
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, it is a very long last point and I do urge the noble Lord to conclude.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It is a very important last point. The more we drift away from both sides of the Atlantic, the emptier our talk of leading the way. Effective foreign relations are built on trust, perceived honesty and reliability, so it is important that deals that are done stay done deals. No one ever doubted the word of Home, Carrington, Howe or Hurd: pacta sunt servanda.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
Everything is going to plan, Mr Putin insists—the carnage, the bombings of schools and maternity units, civilian shelters, and targeting the old, the sick and the young. Yes, everything is going to his plan. He thinks it is a display of strength, of course, but it is a sign of his weakness—yet the war in Ukraine is also a sign of our own weakness.
For decades, our foreign policy has led us to intervene and, in some cases, to invade, which has given others the room to claim that they are only doing what we have done. Time and again, we have climbed to the top of the mountain, only to scuttle back down. After our catastrophic retreat from Kabul airport, Putin’s opportunism became almost inevitable.
Thirty-five years ago, that often-underestimated man Ronald Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate and said:
“Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”
And it was torn down—not by Mr Gorbachev but by millions of oppressed people, using their bare hands. They wanted and demanded what we had—our values and freedoms. Those values were a brilliant light that shone into the darkness. Today, that flame gutters like a candle in the storm. Young people around the world no longer look at us as an example to follow. If Indians wash their hands of this conflict, can we be surprised? A war in a faraway place between old, white, arrogant imperialists—colonial memories live long; they die hard.
So let us stop talking about the West. In itself, the description implies white hegemony and division. Let us instead talk about our free world and embrace all those vibrant democracies, such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia and, above all, those 1.3 billion people of India, soon to be the most populous country on the planet. A free world of democracies—east, west, north, south—can together build a clearer, cleaner future.
Perhaps we should show a little humility. For too long, we have meddled, mucked about and done much damage. That was not our intent, but that is what we did. We do not own the concept of democracy, but we can help spread it—just not at the point of a gun. Here at home, why do we use the language of violence in our own affairs, drive everything to extremes and casually call our opponents liars and scum, pouring acid over our own democracy? Without a little tolerance, all our democratic posturing becomes worthless.
Mr Putin must not win this war. Now, I do not know what “not winning” really means. I do not suppose it will mean complete and utter defeat—much of that is up to Mr Zelensky and his people to decide—but we must help show the world that Putin’s lunacy has failed. He has turned Ukraine into a butcher’s block, but a monument will rise from those bloody ruins, a lasting symbol that will make sense of all the suffering. That symbol will be the freedom of those brave Ukrainians’ children and grandchildren. They are fighting for our grandchildren, too, which is why we must support them. If we can find even a fraction of the courage that those ordinary Ukrainians are showing, our world will be a much safer place. Long live free Ukraine.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, it was inevitable that this debate would focus on the barbaric Russian attack on Ukraine, on the unprovoked violence and war crimes now at the heart of Europe, and indeed on President Zelensky’s remarkable leadership. The Government have made a significant response, which I acknowledge, although I share the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, earlier in the debate.
I suggest that it is not too early to learn some immediate lessons that have long-term consequences; not least, one of those lessons is to defang Russia for at least a couple of generations. I am a lot less concerned with Putin’s loss of face than with the loss of life globally that he is inflicting through war and starvation.
The case for an enhanced NATO in size and capability could not be clearer. Putin sought to divide the alliance but he has consolidated it. However, we have failed in the past to act in a timely way. Putin is a serial offender who has concluded that we lack the will or public support to respond to him. It is an error that surely cannot be repeated. I appeal to President Erdoğan to facilitate the rapid accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, and to understand that late is almost always too late. I profoundly hope, although we have no influence on it, that the EU will also embrace Ukraine’s ambitions to take part as a member state of the EU.
When a violent dictator says in terms that he means to wage war on his neighbours, threatens nuclear attack and commits unspeakable violence, we cannot assume that it is a bluff. Syria, Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova, Donbass itself and cyberaggression—none of these were bluffs. Putin and his acolytes may be psychopaths but it is unhelpful to regard an enemy as irrational; I think it leads us to conclude that we do not know what they will do next, and in that case we are powerless to change their course. In fact the geopolitical aims of Russia are undisguised ambitions, and we have to remember to be as strategic in response to these enemies and opponents as they are, and to avoid the uncomfortable delusions of déjà vu. This was a high-probability, high-impact development—what some people call a grey rhino.
It is imperative to resist the call for early rapprochement. The Kremlin and the oligarchs believe that we will tire of pursuing economic and personal sanctions. There can be no return to business as normal, because it never should have been normal. Londongrad, the copious evidence from Human Rights Watch, Bellingcat and the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, and the extraordinary Catherine Belton and her book, among others, tell us that we cannot go on being the butler, financial facilitator and legal bastion to global bullies and corrupt individuals.
So I applaud the statements by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that we must finally flush out our own egregious past and concede nothing until every square inch of Ukraine is free. We have said these things before but have seldom really acted on them, so I ask the Minister to confirm today that these statements, made at the top of government, are solid promises, and that we will monitor them, detail by detail.
I turn to one other verifiable action. The Justice Secretary has pledged full support—I use his words—to build war crime cases against Putin and his military commanders. That is excellent and I applaud it. It is not easy; although the trial process for alleged murderers and rapists has started in Ukraine, evidence in other cases will none the less have to be collected and verified, people caught and a legitimate tribunal convened.
I have gone back to study the 12 so-called subsequent Nuremberg trials that followed the better-known trials of the Nazi war leaders and mass murderers. These were the trials of people such as Alfred Krupp and the leading directors in his company, the leaders of IG Farben, and Friedrich Flick. They were the industrial and financial enablers of the regime and of its mass murder, and they played essentially the same role that the oligarchs have played—the very reason why the oligarchs have been sanctioned.
Of course, at that time the ICC did not exist and no one could thwart the processes by veto, yet we, the Russians and others accepted universal jurisdiction. The cases were heard before special courts led by the most eminent United States judges, with representation by eminent counsel, transparent process and visible justice. Those found guilty were stripped of their property and served serious prison time. A Russian oligarch may be prepared to forfeit a couple of billion and a football club if he can retain $15 billion and just walk away with it. He may decide that he will never travel to a country where he could be arrested and tried, but my bet is that this is not a price that they will be willing to pay, and nor will their successors if they are made an example.
Could the Minister confirm to the House that we will explore urgently the ways in which we can ensure that Ukraine’s “subsequent Nuremberg” offenders face justice without impunity? If there is an element of history that we can learn from, it is that the enablers of horrific violence should have nowhere to hide. If we have the will, Minister, I am quite convinced that we will find a way.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, Europe does not figure in the title of today’s debate, or indeed of any of the five days of debate on the Queen’s Speech. Europe, it seems, has been abolished.
Some Brexit-related issues were debated last Thursday, when I could not be present as I was participating in the first meeting—finally—of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, set up under the TCA. That meeting was surprisingly useful. I must admit that my expectations were rather modest, fearing that it would just be a talking shop, with speeches by rote, but it was gratifyingly political and practical—not just the very spirited exchange between UK Minister Michael Ellis and Vice-President Šefčovič over the Northern Ireland protocol, to which parliamentarians also contributed, but the calls for progress and resolution over specific issues such as touring artists, rules of origin, bivalve molluscs and citizens’ rights. From our House, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, vice-chaired admirably, as one has learned to expect.
Everything points to a need to repair the UK-EU relationship, with a fundamental change in the UK’s approach signalling an intention to act as a good neighbour to the EU. The experience of co-operation with regard to the war in Ukraine exhibits, albeit in tragic circumstances, the potential for co-operation on security and defence, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, talked about. I hope that the Government, having refused to countenance a chapter in the trade and co-operation agreement to that effect, might now reconsider. Can the Minister tell us what potential the Government saw in President Macron’s recent speech on a political community in Europe with “concentric circles” of co-operation and association?
I want to talk about Brexit consequentials. Both the Brexit freedoms Bill and the Northern Ireland protocol were referred to in last Thursday’s debate but they are also relevant to today. But first, a word about where we are on Brexit. It has been conclusively demonstrated that the sunlit uplands and the land of milk and honey have not materialised, but costly Brexit red tape, hits to trade and our economy, big inflationary pressures and labour shortages have, as my noble friend Lord Taverne described so well.
The Government insist that there are Brexit opportunities—we even have a Minister for them—but the National Audit Office has issued a warning that three key regulators are struggling to recruit and train enough staff to establish bespoke post-Brexit regulatory regimes after leaving the EU. They cannot recruit staff such as lawyers, veterinarians and toxicologists, so how is that going? The Liberal Democrats are right to recommend progressive steps and road maps towards a closer partnership with the EU instead of the barren and costly Brexit that we have at present, and for the UK to set out to rejoin the customs union, the single market and other EU agencies and programmes as appropriate.
The Brexit freedoms Bill is set to provide for retained EU law to be easily amended or repealed by the unamendable stroke of a ministerial pen. As my noble friend Lord Beith warned last Thursday:
“This is a profound and retrograde constitutional change”.—[Official Report, 12/5/22; col. 165.]
What consideration are the Government and civil servants giving to the constraints on what they can do to rid themselves of EU and other European law arising, first, from legal commitments towards Northern Ireland under the devolution settlement and the Northern Ireland protocol and, secondly, from the treaties with the EU?
In respect of Northern Ireland, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement obliges incorporation of the ECHR, which the Human Rights Act currently does, and Article 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol obliges the UK to ensure
“no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity”,
including under Union law—EU law—which is set out in the annexe to the protocol. Will the legal advice that we have been promised on the Northern Ireland protocol cover this very important issue and constraint on diluting the Human Rights Act?
The protocol also requires the UK to
“continue to facilitate the … work of the institutions and bodies set up”
under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement,
“including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission”.
I am sorry to say that the funding and resources of the NIHRC have been so cut to the bone that its status at the UN as a category-A human rights watchdog could be at serious risk within months. That would put the UK at risk of breach of the withdrawal agreement. Are we going to be on the naughty step, like Russia? That would be hugely embarrassing as well as a legal breach. Meanwhile, any tinkering with the UK’s respect for the ECHR could bring into question the justice and security co-operation we are granted under the trade and co-operation agreement.
On data protection, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, warned last Thursday that if the data reform Bill, which aims to cut the burdens on business, relaxes the EU regime in the general data protection regulation so as to
“imperil our precious adequacy agreement from the European Commission”,—[Official Report, 12/5/22; col. 171.]
that would be not only a legal breach but a huge blow to businesses, such as finance and tech. So, instead of charging around like a bull in a china shop, causing damage, when will the Government be constructive in a partnership with the European Union?
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, in this wide-ranging debate on the Queen’s Speech I shall focus on two particular aspects. The first is following up the reference in the gracious Speech to the legacy in Northern Ireland. I very much welcome the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill that was introduced in the House of Commons yesterday and look forward to debating it in your Lordships’ House when it comes here later in the year. Many issues will be raised by that Bill, but I am sure that, in particular, we need to take the opportunity to protect the interests of veteran soldiers who served with distinction in the Province of Northern Ireland 30, 40 and 50 years ago. We owe it to them to ensure that the Government deliver on their promise, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance in his winding-up speech that those issues will be properly focused on and prioritised.
The second aspect on which I wish to comment is the effect of the Ukraine war on British defence policy as we reassess, as we should, last year’s integrated review. The aspiration for global Britain and the tilt towards the Indo-Pacific has faced a sharp reality check from the war in Europe at the present moment. I think we all agree that the architecture of the European security structure is changing almost as we speak, as is NATO’s response, not least due to Finland and Sweden wishing to join NATO, and, of course, the changed position of Germany.
Obviously and importantly, there are implications for the United Kingdom specifically. In my view, unless Her Majesty’s Government wish to change their priorities which were set out in the integrated review, there is no alternative than to increase our defence budget. It is not a zero-sum game at this moment in our history. If we are going to spend more in one area, we are going to spend less in another. There is an increasing case to spend more, probably approaching a rise from 2% to 3% of our GDP.
The argument behind that increase is driven by the needs of our land forces. The war in Ukraine has shown the importance of having adequate land forces that can be employed. As a first step, I urge the Government to reconsider the cuts that have been tabled in recent defence reviews, particularly the cuts to Armed Forces manpower, particularly Army manpower, to reassess some of the proposals to take equipment out of service and to consider new programmes.
Time precludes a lengthy shopping list, and I am well aware that there are respectable arguments which point to warfare having changed as innovation has driven new technologies and that there are different ways of conducting warfare in the 21st century. That is true, but that does not mean that some of the traditional conventional methods of conducting warfare are any less valid. The sad reality that the Treasury and the Government have to accept is that a range of golf clubs is required in the bag, and just because you have a new club does not mean that you can throw away some of the old ones.
Therefore, I urge the Government and the Ministry of Defence to look at our land manoeuvre capability. That capability has been illustrated by the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. We have to ask ourselves whether having 148 main battle tanks, albeit refurbished main battle tanks, is sufficient. In the days of the Cold War, we could field four armoured divisions; now, we cannot field one armoured division. In the First and Second World Wars, we fielded countless divisions. Our capability is much reduced.
It is important to look again at the upgrade to the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle. It was decided that it was too expensive, so that programme of vehicles is being taken out of service. Why does that matter? The tank is a tracked vehicle and can manoeuvre across difficult country; the Warrior is a tracked vehicle and can manoeuvre across difficult country. It will be replaced with the Boxer, which is a wheeled vehicle. Put simply, a tractor can get across a muddy field; a saloon car cannot follow. A main battle tank can get across difficult country, as can a Warrior, but a Boxer, a wheeled vehicle, cannot follow.
We need to increase our air defence capacity, our counter-drone capability, our field and rocket artillery and our logistics sustainability. The post-Cold War mantra which changed “just in case” to “just in time” has been proved to have failed on many occasions. We must increase our logistics sustainability. The war in Ukraine is a wake-up call for us and for NATO. Previous risks taken with our defence expenditure are coming home to roost. It is our obligation to buy out some of those risks and ensure that we have a good capability, particularly a good land capability, to field in future.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, on the “Today” programme on Radio 4 on Friday the Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Coveney, asserted that “the EU cannot and will not renegotiate the Northern Ireland protocol”. In fact the EU can, should and must renegotiate it. It can renegotiate because any treaty can be renegotiated, and many are. It should renegotiate it because the sole justification of the protocol was to uphold the Belfast agreement, and the first article is that nothing in the protocol shall prejudice the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. As the former Solicitor-General, Sir Robert Buckland, said yesterday,
“that means … that the … agreement takes primacy over the protocol”,—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/22; col. 554.]
so the British Government, as co-guarantor of the agreement, have a duty to renegotiate the elements of it which are undermining the Belfast agreement.
The main point I want to make in the five minutes that I have is that the EU must renegotiate the protocol. It must because, legally, the protocol is not a permanent arrangement: it must eventually be replaced or it will lapse. That is not my opinion or the Government’s opinion; it was the whole basis on which the EU negotiated the withdrawal agreement: that, under Article 50, it did not have the competence to negotiate a permanent trade and co-operation agreement with a member state. Article 50 allowed it only to negotiate the divorce terms and temporary or transitional arrangements to smooth the departure of a member state. It said that a permanent trade relationship could be agreed under Article 218 only with a non-member state. That is why the EU refused Mrs May’s request to negotiate the trade and co-operation agreement in parallel with the withdrawal agreement. The UK had first to leave the EU, agree to sign the withdrawal agreement and become a non-member state before negotiations on a permanent trade and co-operation agreement could even begin, so how come there was a trade and co-operation agreement covering Northern Ireland?
The Northern Ireland protocol could be agreed under Article 50 only because and so long as it was temporary; it was needed to smooth departure, not least because there was no certainty that a permanent trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU would be in place by the time we left the EU. That should not be news to us because the former Attorney-General Geoffrey Cox explained to the House of Commons that,
“article 50 of the Treaty on European Union does not provide a legal basis in Union law for permanent future arrangements with non-member states”. —[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/18; col. 547.]
He went on to say that, if traders in future felt disadvantaged by the protocol, they should
“beat a path to the door of the Commission and the Court … to say, ‘Didn’t you say that article 50 is not a sound legal foundation for this arrangement?’ And I tell you frankly, Mr Speaker, they are likely to win.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/18; col. 555.]
The original protocol itself spelled out that
“the Withdrawal Agreement, which is based on Article 50 TEU, does not aim at establishing a permanent future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom”.
That is equally true of the protocol in the final withdrawal Act, since it, too, is based on Article 50. Paragraph 8 of Article 13 of the protocol itself specifically envisages the replacement of all or parts of the protocol by a subsequent agreement. Nor does the provision in the final protocol for approval or rejection by the Northern Ireland Assembly alter the issue; even if the Assembly were to endorse the arrangements set down under the protocol, which was an agreement between the EU and the whole UK, not just Northern Ireland itself, that would not change its transitional nature.
The temporary nature of the protocol is a matter of EU law. I am puzzled that its author never remembers that nowadays. He and all the other spokesmen of the European Union in this House suffer from a selective memory and treat this protocol as if it is to be permanent and cannot and should not be changed, even if undermines the Belfast agreement, which was the very purpose of that protocol. Of course, I give way to the noble Lord, my former good friend.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It is just possible that the noble Lord is confusing two versions of the protocol —the one negotiated by the previous Prime Minister and the one negotiated by the present Prime Minister. The previous Prime Minister’s protocol was, on the face of it, clear, straightforward and temporary. The present Prime Minister’s protocol is permanent.
Lord Lilley (Con)
The transitory nature of both protocols arises from Article 50, which the noble Lord himself wrote—and if he wishes to repudiate that and say that Article 50 does not mean what the European Union says that it means, that would be an interesting thing to do. If the European Union were now to change its view and say, “We were conning you and having you on when we said that we couldn’t negotiate a permanent arrangement under Article 50”, it would show that the original treaty was based on negotiations in bad faith, and that would give us a basis to seek renegotiation.
More positively, we should look to the EU to negotiate and renegotiate with the same spirit and the same objective that it did the original protocol: to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its parts. I welcome the fact that the British Government are moving forward on that basis.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, the UK Government played an important role in the discussions with Iran which first led to the JCPOA and today are part of an important negotiation being led by the United States for a new treaty. There are many voices pressing caution. I draw particular attention to an article in March’s edition of Foreign Policy by Hussein Agha, one of the most astute and brilliant commentators on the region and an active and widely respected peace negotiator. His article is a brutal assessment of where we could be heading. He writes, under the headline, “The United States’ Clueless Diplomacy Won’t Stop a Nuclear Iran”, that a deal could lead to the worst of both worlds. It will not derail the regime’s nuclear ambitions and will strengthen the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Today is not 2015, and the deal of 2015 was achieved through wider considerations, but its work was unfinished. Today Iran’s capacity is very significantly advanced and it is a lesson, if ever we needed it, that it is not just about signing agreements but about ensuring that provisions are implemented and the consequences properly managed. Many felt able to justify the 2015 accord as some totemic struggle for power in Iran between extremists and moderates, or between fundamentalists and reformers. However, as Agha notes, the real struggle has been between the revolutionary guard and the official state and its military.
The revolutionary guard was not present at the 2015 talks and did not like the deal. As Agha concludes, it is unequivocally in control now, which is why the issue about its proscription is so important—a position the US should not weaken and one in which other countries should join, including the UK. We have seen its role in creating parallel institutions around the region and supporting destabilisation, which has only gained pace since the Afghan withdrawal. It is not just about how it has increased popular mobilisation forces in Iraq, or various militias in Syria, and not just about Hezbollah in Lebanon, whose rule has destroyed and crippled the country and whose electoral setbacks still mean that it will exert much destructive influence. It is not just about its increased activity and support for Hamas and Islamic jihad in the Palestinian territories, setting loose terrorism in Israel to undermine the Palestinian Authority and push further away, as if it was not far away already, any opportunity to re-engage in any form of peace process. Its influence with the Houthis in Yemen continually undermines the fragile ceasefire.
Agreements work when the politics in which they are embedded is right. This was a flaw in 2015, and we must avoid it with any new agreement. Is it really possible today to say that the new agreement can be trusted when it is underpinned by Russia acting as guarantor and the custodian of billions of dollars for Iran’s domestic nuclear development? May I seek the assurance of the Minister that the agreement ensures that our vital security and strategic interests and our work for stability in the wider region are properly reflected in what we are prepared to sign up to?
I applaud the Government’s strong stance on Ukraine. The Russian invasion and brutal war on the Ukrainian people are not just appalling but will have huge implications for years to come. As the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on War Crimes, I welcome the Government’s pledge that those responsible for war crimes in Ukraine are held to account. I am pleased that we have provided support for such investigations. I would be very grateful if the Minister could kindly agree to keep the House updated on what our resource commitment is and what role we are playing in this matter. I appreciate that it is in the nature of these issues that responsibility is shared across the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.
We have in this Parliament always taken seriously the matter of war criminals evading justice, whether here or abroad. However, recent experience raises concerns and the group has been very worried about what we are committed to and whether our deeds properly reflect our words. In looking at a number of the cases that have been raised in the UK, we can conclude that we are at risk here of becoming a safe haven, and we do not have the capacity to play an important international role.
To illustrate the point, in the UK today there are five suspects believed to have taken part in the 1994 genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda. In 2015 and 2017, a British district judge in the High Court ruled that, even though the evidence was compelling, none could be sent back to Rwanda because such action could breach their human rights on the grounds that the suspects would not receive a fair trial. We undertook to take on this responsibility. The resources allocated to Ukraine, even if it is one person, dwarf those allocated in pursuit of the Rwandan investigations, which in truth are no more than a percentage allocation of one member of a small wider team in the Metropolitan Police and the CPS. Many issues have been raised about the difficulties, but it has not stopped other countries, such as the US, Canada, France, Belgium, Germany and Sweden, helping, including during the pandemic. We in the group have faced an unwillingness to provide information, a lack of transparency and refusals to meet. We can conclude only that our investigative capacity is intentionally depleted, and that poor resourcing reflects poor commitment. If we are a country that takes war crimes seriously, as we have done in the past with Nazi war criminals and say we are doing in the Ukraine today, we need to put that right. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm his willingness to take this matter back to his colleagues, assure us of a meeting and assure us that we will have the proper commitment and capacity to meet our commitments on this matter.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that powerful speech on war crimes from the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn.
Two days ago my friend Ostap headed east from Lviv in Ukraine, armed with his AK47, his helmet and his body armour. I worked with Ostap in Kyiv when he was the foreign affairs adviser to the speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament. A few years ago, he studied here in this country at the Royal College of Defence Studies, and I was able to give him and his two little boys a tour of Parliament. Now he is in the east of Ukraine, trained as a military fireman. When we were in touch at the weekend, he was understandably extremely apprehensive yet proud to be serving his country.
My friend Olena’s brave young son Nikolai has left his studies at Cambridge University to fight for his cultural homelands. Yuliya, a very dear friend who is now living in Toronto, is facing the dilemma of whether to move her elderly parents and mother-in-law over to Canada from Ukraine. These are the ordinary lives, shattered by this appalling war, of Ukrainian friends with very different backgrounds. The thing they all have in common is that they just want Ukraine to have the right to be a modern, democratic European country without interference from Moscow.
The response to the war in Ukraine has so far been powerful and united: from Ukrainian flags in our gardens, towns and villages to the amazing response of people offering to open up their homes to Ukrainian families. The stance from the UK has been hugely appreciated in Ukraine, even if at times our Home Office has been tragically slow and bureaucratic in matching the response of the British people. The worry is that people will become tired of hearing about this war and move on with their lives but, for the sake of Ukraine, we must remain focused and keep up the pressure.
In the limited time left for me today, I would like to raise four political points. First, when I studied Russian in Voronezh University back in 1988—at the very tail-end of the Cold War—we had a great many Russia experts and Kremlinologists in this country. They were people who understood the language, political culture and psychology of Russia, a country where I worked and studied and still have a great many friends. I believe it would be a mistake to conflate Vladimir Putin and his delusional authoritarian entourage with the ordinary Russian people. Putin’s views and plans about Ukraine were set out fairly clearly over a decade ago, but I fear we took our eye off the ball. Following the same kind of question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, can the Minister give a commitment to encourage greater emphasis in the FCDO on studying the Russian language and Russian politics again? I believe that is going to be hugely important in the future.
Secondly, for sanctions to work it takes time. Friends in Moscow tell me that, as of yet, it is hard to feel their impacts. There should be no talk of lifting the sanctions until the Putin regime has gone.
My third point is about greatly strengthening our relations with other former Soviet states. In particular, I stress the importance of our bilateral relations with Moldova and Georgia. Strengthening bilateral relations is also of key importance in central Asia, in particular in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. I have been working regularly in central Asia for the last five years—I refer to my register of interests—and know that those countries are extremely keen for our relations to be strengthened at all levels, including in capacity-building and academic ties. If we do not do this, Moscow or Beijing will fill that void. I should add that soft-power initiatives through the British Council in the region would hugely benefit from increased funding in that regard. Can the Minister say whether there are plans to develop a new strategy for central Asia? It is an often neglected but strategically important region, perhaps especially now.
What the war in Ukraine has demonstrated all too clearly is the importance of working effectively with other countries and the strength and impact of multilateralism. When we work effectively with others, it enhances our reputation as a nation on the world stage. This is a lesson I believe this Government would do well to adopt in their approach to resolving the issues surrounding the Northern Ireland protocol.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, any contribution to this debate must surely begin with Ukraine because that crisis is transforming radically so many of the parameters which previously defined the international scene in which we lived and operated. I will make three points on Ukraine.
First, we outsiders should, I suggest, avoid two extremes—both now and when the warfare ceases and diplomacy and negotiations begin, as they must sooner or later. We must not bully Ukraine into agreeing to terms which they believe to be unacceptable. That was the mortal sin of the 1938 Munich agreement and of Yalta. The other is to bid up those terms from afar with talk of engagement with Russia having ended, and with sweeping definitions of the geographical scope of any settlement. Secondly, we need to realise that the strongest card the Euro-Atlantic community has in its hand is its unity. This is not a beauty contest between its members; we and Ukraine need to recognise that. Thirdly, we need to do better on admitting Ukrainians who are fleeing for their lives. The Government’s response in that respect still falls well short; in particular, short of that of our continental neighbours.
If Ukraine has changed so much, how then does it affect our still excessively fraught relationship with the EU? It surely demonstrates the need for much closer and more structured co-operation on crisis management, economic sanctions and other aspects. This is not the time to drift into a confrontation over the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol or to threaten to take unilateral action to set aside explicit provisions in the withdrawal agreement. That is the height of irresponsibility.
A better course would be to negotiate in good faith and with flexibility on both sides, with the aim of agreement on the protocol’s implementation by the summer break but with any wider governance issues, such as the role of the European Court of Justice, to be reconsidered at the time of the 2024 review of the protocol—when it will be possible to do that on the basis of solid evidence about what, if any, changes need to be made. There are so many ways in which the UK-EU relationship could be improved that are currently being blocked, in some cases unjustifiably, by this frozen negotiation over the protocol.
The Ukraine conflict has accentuated and brought into sharper focus the existential challenge to the rules-based international order which has been under way for some time now. The Government, quite rightly in my view, regard the preservation and strengthening of that order as being in this country’s fundamental national interest. But how much credibility does that policy position have in the outside world when legislation is brought forward and enacted which is inconsistent with our international obligations? That was the case with the internal market Bill, with the original version of the external operations Act, with the Nationality and Borders Act, and with our resiling from the UN target of 0.7% GNI for overseas aid, enshrined still in our domestic law but not being honoured. Now there is the threat unilaterally to set aside parts of the Northern Ireland protocol. I suggest there is very little credibility if we cannot close the gap between what we say and what we actually do.
Many aspects of last year’s integrated review need careful consideration in the light of the Ukraine, Covid and climate crises. Is the balance unchanged between the weight we give to European security on our doorstep and the Indo-Pacific tilt which the review proclaimed? I doubt it. Are we paying enough attention to our relations with the countries of Africa, where this country really could make a difference with trade, investment, aid and peacekeeping support, or are we taking our eye off that ball? Are we allowing the main instruments of our soft power—the BBC World Service, the British Council and the worldwide contribution of our universities—to wither on the bough for lack of resources? Are we doing enough to prepare for the next global health pandemic that comes along, as it surely will? Are we shaping an energy policy which will both reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian oil and gas and effectively combat climate change?
We are living now through a period when our foreign and security policy decisions really matter, in a way they perhaps have not to the same extent since the end of the Cold War some 30 years ago. I wish I was more confident that we were getting them right.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I adopt all the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.
Two weeks ago, Professor Frankopan wrote in the Times that we are now at a “turning point in history”. Is that justified? It cannot rest solely on the crisis in Ukraine. There are other factors, such as the sequelae of Covid, the closure of Chinese ports, extreme weather in India and so on, but surely the crisis in Ukraine is the main basis for that claim. The outcome is now uncertain but it is clear that Russia has failed in its major war aims.
I will make two reflections: first, on the errors of President Putin, and, secondly, on the possible geopolitical consequences of the crisis. Clearly, President Putin made a major miscalculation. Perhaps he misread the West’s response to the debacle of Afghanistan and, earlier, Georgia, in 2008, and Crimea, in 2014. He assumed that it would be a similarly weak response, and he wished to indulge his fantasies and rebuild Russia’s sphere of influence. In fact, he has been met with a united response from the West: the supply of arms to Ukraine, and I commend the role of the UK in this; the reversal of Germany’s traditional policies; and the unity of the European Union—which surely argues the case for a closer relationship between us on the CFSP and CSDP—and NATO, as our key alliance. There is also the unintended consequence of Finland and Sweden seeking to join NATO; they will be contributors to the security of the alliance. Western unity was seen in the general imposition of sanctions against Russia and its oligarchs, from oil and gas to Eurovision and even McDonald’s. The result is that the Russian economy is scheduled to shrink by 12% this year. In the longer term, one asks where Russia’s main exports will come from, as dependence on oil and gas reduces and the failure of the military means that there will be less demand. Who now buys Russian consumer goods?
Russia is faced with international isolation and its military matériel faces the real test in war; a test of its leadership and of the quality of its arms. It chose inadequate preparation and stockpiles, made optimistic assumptions of taking Kyiv, and has had weapons failure—and perhaps here there is an opportunity for our own exporters. It failed to factor in the solidarity of Ukraine in its grand patriotic war, or the inspired leadership of President Zelensky. Napoleon said that, in war, the mental element overreaches the physical by a factor of three to one. Incidentally, the way that the inexperienced Foreign Secretary here speaks of taking the whole of Ukraine is—just like her gung ho approach to Northern Ireland—of course wrong. We have seen Russia diminished, and this is likely to have a serious and long-lasting effect.
My second reflection is that there is a major geostrategic change in prospect. The broad principle is that democracy was in decline with the strongmen, but now there could be a boost for the democrats over the autocrats who see no checks and balances. There is a potential stark effect on developing countries, as the noble Lord, Lord King, said, with prices and energy costs rising, likely increased instability and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said, increased migration. Russia has threatened a nuclear response and there would clearly be implications for the NPT. We could see a realignment of the major powers, particularly the relationship between Russia and China. Russia claims that China is now an equal. Clearly, with the decline of Russia, there will be a more lopsided relationship, with a greater dependence of Russia on China. Perhaps the Minister could comment on this.
Finally, we must ensure that Putin’s reckless gamble does not succeed and we must strengthen our alliances. I concede that we now see through a glass darkly, but the global tectonic plates are shifting, and we may indeed be at a turning point in our history.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I will focus on another European region conflict.
As a former Council of Europe rapporteur on political prisoners in Azerbaijan, I was invited last month to visit their Parliament, to mark the 30th anniversary of UK-Azerbaijan diplomatic relations, and to discuss peace and reconciliation following the recovery of most of Karabakh, previously occupied for 30 years by Armenia. The frozen conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh has been a running sore throughout that time. There are strong feelings on both sides, and 800,000 Azeris were displaced from the region.
Now, the scale of physical destruction of buildings and infrastructure has been revealed. The international community and the UN consistently recognised that the territory is part of Azerbaijan, yet nothing changed until the six-week war in 2020. Most of the disputed territory was recovered by Azerbaijan, with one enclave still controlled by Artsakh. Emotions and reason are not easily reconciled, yet it is clear that peace and reconciliation is in all the parties’ interests. For those territories now firmly under Azeri control, there is a need for demining, reconstruction, restoration and resettlement. For the Armenian community within the territory of Azerbaijan, there is a need for reconciliation and confidence building, which clearly will not be easy and needs sensitive handling. The damaged and destroyed buildings of both communities need to be treated with equal respect.
Azerbaijan has a long history of tolerance, interfaith co-operation and mutual respect, which should now be the hallmark of building peace across this region. Over time, this should allow key strategic links to be established, which is important for both countries. Armenians need to access their communities within Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan needs to connect to its detached region of Nakhchivan. Roads and railways are under construction and airports have been built.
Whatever the sensitivities, there must be a reaching out for peace and stability that recognises the integral territory of both countries. No one doubts the challenges that lie ahead, but can the Minister say what actions the UK is taking towards achieving a peace settlement that may offer stability? Do the Government support the initiatives undertaken by the European Union?
This week, the Government’s international development strategy was published. As a former chair of the International Development Committee, I have been dismayed to watch the dismantling of the UK’s world-leading international aid delivery. The merger of DfID and the FCO has been deeply disruptive to diplomatic capacity and development impact. There has been a loss of talent and a drop in morale. The new strategy is strong on rhetoric but appears mostly focused on how aid and development can further British interests in trade and investment. There are of course legitimate foreign policy interests in development assistance. However, the fact that our aid was untied and poverty-focused gave it an ethical dimension that enhanced our reputation around the globe and enabled the UK to provide real leadership.
I was proud to see UK programmes that were transformational in building capacity and lifting millions out of poverty, but the strategy is short on detail. The restoration of 0.7% is in the misty future, the commitment to women and girls is based on reduced funding, and it is not clear what the UK’s objectives and outcomes might be. There is little mention of the sustainable development goals. Where is the commitment to end absolute poverty by 2030? What are the key UK development initiatives to leave no-one behind?
Ukraine needs humanitarian assistance and economic support, but that should not be at the expense of the poorest countries, not least because the impact of the pandemic, the fallout from the war in Ukraine—especially in food shortages—and the growing impact of climate change will hit these countries hardest. How will the focus on bilateral aid and country programmes affect our influence in international arenas? How will this decentralisation be achieved without a loss of coherence, value for money and strategic objectives? How will it be delivered, given the dismantling of DfID’s previous expertise? Until this Government took office, the world looked to the UK for leadership in development. It now appears that we have left the room.
Briefly, I ask the Minister whether he can give some comment on the Caribbean policy, particularly in relation to Guyana, where there is massive development opportunity in which Canada and America are engaging. British business is interested and wants to engage. British International Investment has an increased role in the Caribbean. Can the Minister tell us what that will involve and how it will engage in ensuring the transformation of Guyana from a poor country to a sustainable country which can serve as a driver for the whole Caribbean region?
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, it is timely to make some assessment of what has been happening in Ukraine. Where may it lead?
The starkest aspect is the intensive and brutal scale of combat. Large numbers of bombs, missiles, rockets and other ammunitions have been used on both sides. Much equipment lies destroyed beyond recovery. Unless these rates much reduce, it will be possible for Ukraine to keep fighting strongly only if allies and defence industries can keep up and replenish stocks as quickly as they are used up.
The Minister stressed that the UK would keep up its supplies, so are steps necessary to put relevant defence industries on a war footing or extra shifts? More than fine promises are required. Our national defence needs must also not be neglected. What information is available to assess whether Russia will sustain its current efforts and, if so, for how long? It must keep enough to repel a NATO attack which it says it fears. Sadly, protracted conflict seems unavoidable.
In a recent debate on a Ukraine Statement, I asked whether the Government had made any assessment of the impact that economic and other sanctions might be having on the Russian war effort. This question applies even more to the effect of all these sanctions, both economically and politically, on Russia. Sanctions do not seem to have deterred or deflected Putin from combat, or from his determination to claim some substantial victory over Ukraine.
Germany and other European states still see it necessary to draw extensively on Russian oil and gas to keep their own economies going. Eliminating this dependency will take time. Russia also had $600 billion of reserves to prosecute the war and overcome the effects of sanctions. The dollar/rouble exchange rate, which halved for a short while when Russia invaded, is now back to where it was before 24 February. The overall Russian position does not seem immediately perilous.
Putin was asserting only last week that sanctions were not working—well, he would, wouldn’t he? But sanctions are not a zero-sum game, as Putin also pointed out. They will have detrimental effects on UK nationals and their businesses. Other sanctions impact on the wider public, with very unwelcome increases in the prices of fuel and electricity, maybe on inflation too.
There needs to be some form of strategic assessment of all these conflicting issues. Where does the balance of advantage lie? When there is some form of ceasefire, what easements of sanctions should be made or should seized assets be put into a great Ukrainian recovery fund? Would that be legal, or is new law required to do so? How soon could such law be enacted?
In all of this, it is vital to keep public support on side. Sanctions must be explained for their effectiveness; why, as necessary, they must be continued; and how they can help Ukraine after the conflict ends. Is this at the forefront of government thinking, their policy and pronouncements? I look for some reassurance that it is.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. I claim no expertise in defence matters, but I have a strong sense of commitment to the maintenance of the defence of the realm. I will focus mainly on the Army, where I believe there is another side to the impressive list of actions mentioned by my noble friend the Minister in opening the debate.
Last year’s integrated defence review was underpinned by the assumption that, in the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister:
“We have to recognise that the old concepts of fighting big tank battles on the European landmass … are over”.
We all say things that we later come to regret. Far from Ukraine vindicating the review, as the Government have now been claiming, I venture to suggest the opposite and that recent events in Ukraine show that the basis of the review was fundamentally wrong and needs to be put right.
Thirty years ago, at the supposed end of the Cold War, 4% of our GDP was spent on each of defence and health. Now, over 7% of our GDP is spent on health and 2% on defence; that is not enough. Germany and Poland are doubling their expenditure and many neighbours are increasing theirs. We must raise ours too by as much as is necessary.
However, percentages and cash figures are not the right way to address this. It is not what we spend that matters most but what we need to defend ourselves and our allies. The integrated review feels more like a cost management report driven by cash limits and not defence needs. In the Army that is reflected, for example, in the false distinction it makes between equipment and manpower—between technology and boots on the ground. We need both. Of course, technology matters, as the heroic soldiers of Ukraine have shown with British weaponry, but manpower is essential and more fundamental. Technology can assist but not replace it. Soldiers on the ground are vital to turn defence into attack, take the fight to the enemy, change tactics quickly when required and to seize and hold recovered ground. Manpower matters and, for our warfighting ability, mass matters.
Overnight, the world has changed; we are back in the Cold War. Conventional war is not dead, as so many assumed, and we must react to that and not be driven by an accountant’s ledger. The first and most obvious need is surely to cancel at once the 11% cut in our manpower that so demoralised our allies and cheered our adversaries, leaving us with the smallest Army for two centuries. Instead of the 73,000 figure, we should be aiming upwards towards 100,000, for that is the direction in which a proper assessment of our needs must surely drive us.
I am told that the Army’s warfighting division now contains only two armoured brigades with only four infantry battalions between them, comprising just 29,000 fighting men. I further understand that out of over 200 tanks we have only 112 serviceable ones, of which fewer than 50 are ready for immediate use. These are frightening numbers; the Russians count their tanks in thousands. They have already lost many hundreds in Ukraine. What use would our contribution be in a major NATO engagement or in fulfilling our new promises to Sweden and Finland? Tanks need support from armoured formations of infantry to hold terrain won. A lack of that is what has caused Russia to lose so many.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, mentioned, the Warrior armoured fighting vehicles which could support tanks have already been scrapped under the review. What a help some of them could have been in Ukraine. There is also said to be a serious shortage of long-range artillery support. So, we have at present a lack of weapons of all kinds, a lack of integration, a lack of co-ordination and backup on the battlefield, a capacity on the ground so small as to be of limited value, and a severe shortage of manpower with which to face what could be the greatest threat to our country and the rest of Europe.
I believe that we need to face up to the new reality and our present vulnerability. We should especially heed the recent statement of the present Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, who has now said in the Soldier magazine that Ukraine has
“highlighted the fact that mass and size are important.”
He has also said:
“I’m not comfortable with an Army of just 73,000. It’s too small.”
Coming from him, this is a powerful message to the Government, and I urge them to heed it.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in the 1990s, Edwina Currie and I were invited to Moscow to undertake a series of talks in the Duma on democracy. During that visit, and on a later visits under different auspices, I gained two distinct impressions. First, our embassy staff were convinced that the embassy was bugged, with its staff under surveillance. Secondly, Russians I met seemed convinced to the point of paranoia that American-sponsored nuclear deployments encircling Russia were a constant threat to Russian security. The problem was that both accusations were essentially true.
That belief, set against a background of 26 million losses in the Second World War, stands at the heart of Russia’s paranoia. This is why decent, innocent and patriotic Russian citizens, when additionally subject to propaganda on Ukraine’s Nazification, believe that the West is conspiring to undermine the Russian state. It is that combination—the perceived Nazification of Ukraine, the 26 million losses and the nuclear threat—which underlines and reinforces Putin’s grossly exaggerated case. He has been able to justify his actions and appalling brutality by drawing on the work of Lev Golinkin, a prominent Jewish writer with impeccable credentials, who, in his detailed 19-page report, “Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine”, available through our Library, details concerns over what he describes as “dark nationalism”. His case is endorsed by Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the US-funded Radio Free Europe, Amnesty International and the World Jewish Congress. His report details the scale of alleged Nazification of Ukrainian institutions, the sponsorship of violence, the role of the Azov Battalion with its roots in extremism, the persecution of Jews, Roma and LGBT groups, the treatment of the liberal media, attitudes to the Holocaust and the banning of the Russian language.
We cannot simply ignore the impact of such reporting on Russian public opinion. It is influencing events and attitudes to military intervention. Our democracies are identified with these reactionary movements and our response is ill-judged. We are set on a very dangerous course. For weeks, I have set out my reservations: the internal pressures that increasingly underly a volatile Russia—over which Putin, in truth, has limited control—invite danger. We need to rethink our current and post- Putin strategy. We do not need a humiliated Russia and a Versailles; there would be no real winners.
I have argued previously in this House the case in detail for a deal to avoid war. Macron, who has been appallingly treated by fellow Europeans, has promoted within the Normandy Format a
“desire to maintain the stability and territorial integrity of Ukraine”—
but outside of NATO. He is being completely undermined as the West runs its proxy war. Equally, the deal proposed by Anatol Lieven of the Washington-based Quincy Institute has been blocked and rubbished. Unsettling the world in a prolonged proxy war can only unleash forces which extend far beyond the borders of a small European state. We need to talk. Lives are being lost in a fruitless conflict which is being used—as has been argued in the media—by some in government to consolidate their leadership. The war is provoking inflation and penalising the poor at home here in the UK. The only silver lining is that brutal Putin’s days are numbered as the truth dawns on the innocent Russian people as to the scale of the brutality taking place in their name.
I believe—as I always have—that there was a deal to be done with Russia prior to this conflict and we failed to pursue it. Ukraine will end up worse off, and that is a real tragedy. The truth will come out in the end.
I congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, on the brilliant speech he gave just a few moments ago.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
Following that rather unique opinion, I am very happy to take part in this debate on the gracious Speech and what it did and did not say. Contrary to common belief, it is trade that makes the world go round. Does the Minister accept that the Johnson oven-ready Brexit deal has not led to an increase in trade but to significant falls in UK imports and exports, leading to rising food prices and empty supermarket shelves? The supply chain in so many areas of activity which has existed on JIT—just in time—is finding that it no longer works; when reordering, it is now JTL, just too late. Can the Minister please comment on what the Government plan to do about threats to UK farming and industry, a very important part of our trade?
Since last year, headlines have reported widespread disruptions to supply chains, leading to delayed deliveries, higher prices, gaps on shop shelves and even petrol stations without fuel. This is the reality—not the situation described by the Minister. Greggs, IKEA, Tesco and BP have all reported on these issues. Can the Minister please update the House on the reports, six months ago, of Coca-Cola reporting stock shortages and its battle to get enough cans to put its cola in? But it is not only soft drinks that have been affected—I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to hear. If your tipple is Johnnie Walker, Smirnoff, Captain Morgan or Guinness, prepare for a deprivation, as Diageo said that it was facing a “more challenging” environment. As for the gourmets: McDonald’s and Nando’s reported disruption to their supplies. Can the Minister please update the House on whether frozen food suppliers are, as they would have done in all previous years, laying down stock for Christmas? Some of them just cannot get any stock to lay down for Christmas.
It only gets worse. Unilaterally tearing up the Northern Ireland protocol is an egregious breach of international law which will plunge the UK into a trade war with our closest neighbours. The Conservatives must release the Attorney-General’s legal advice on the protocol immediately, along with the economic impact assessment of scrapping it. If there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear.
Any responsible Government would be announcing an emergency VAT cut to combat soaring bills and food costs. Instead, Johnson’s Conservatives put forward plans that will make it harder for the millions of families struggling to make ends meet. If the Tories go ahead with his plans laid out in the gracious Speech, they risk starting a trade war with our largest trading partner and turning a real cost of living crisis into a catastrophe. At a time when we should be working with our allies in the face of Russian aggression, despite what the previous speaker has just said, these measures which breach international law will ignite a diplomatic firestorm. This public posturing undermines our standing on the world stage and only makes matters worse. We need the UK and the EU to calmly work pragmatically to find solutions. I read in today’s newspapers that the Foreign Secretary is talking very bullishly about tearing up aspects of the Northern Ireland protocol.
Historically, Britain has been one of the great trading nations of the world. I regret that, under this incompetent, cavalier and rule-breaking Administration, it can no longer be called so. I wait with bated breath to hear how the Minister is going to preserve and enhance our reputation as one of the greatest trading nations of the world.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, there came a moment in this debate when I was, frankly, hoping—and so perhaps were others—for a short intermission, when suddenly there broke out a fascinating spat, to use a technical term, between the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and my noble friend Lord Kerr. Being the intellectual heavyweights that they are, they squared up to one another, face to face for a moment—although I note that, since then, after a long, private conversation, they have gone out, presumably for a reconciliatory cup of tea.
A few minutes before that, we had heard the noble Lord, Lord Frost, being as clear as he ever is. With breathtaking boldness, he rejected the efficacy of a treaty provision that had been negotiated with great care—by the noble Lord, Lord Frost. Indeed, he did so without, it appeared, a grain of apology. Although those three noble Lords are not in their places at the moment, I hope to take your Lordships for a moment to Northern Ireland and the reality of the Good Friday agreement reached on that memorable day, 10 April 1998.
Your Lordships will recall that not only was that agreement reached but it was reached after 30 years of fighting in Northern Ireland—and it was reached between parties who distrusted each other to the core. Two of those parties, the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, and John Hume, from very different parts of the Northern Ireland political spectrum, won the Nobel Peace Prize for their work. Also, following the agreement, there were two referendums on the island of Ireland which supported it. As it happens, shortly afterwards I became the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and, in the time since 2001, I have spent quite a lot of time in Northern Ireland, in places such as Stormont, the Bar Library, Queen’s University Belfast and other pleasant places of resort in Belfast, discussing that agreement.
And what do we have? Those people who distrusted one another have tried to trust one another. Belfast is a remarkable, pleasant city now compared with what it was. The restaurants are open, the bars are open—you go to Boots and you find people from all communities working there. As one person said to me, “It’s the real parable of Northern Ireland. Sometimes they marry each other and it’s all over for them”. In truth, the effect of the Good Friday agreement has been to change Northern Ireland and its polity out of all recognition.
In my view, it is absolutely inexcusable, when plainly there are other measures available, and when the Administrations in London, Belfast and Dublin could get together and solve these problems if only they stopped talking as they are to one another. This problem can be resolved, the Good Friday agreement can remain unaffected and an agreement can be reached. It should not be done with a threat to break a treaty. The breaking of that treaty by the United Kingdom—I think that I am with my noble friend Lord Kerr rather than the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, on this—is an unacceptable breach not just of the law but of the law of nations: and what is higher in law than the law of nations?
So, in focusing on this single subject which has real international repercussions, I ask the noble Lord, when he answers this debate—we all hold him in great regard in this House—to confirm that no Government should ever make a treaty that they know at the time of making it that they may be unable to keep, and that no Government should break a treaty made with friends once it has been made, because there is always another way.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I agree with just about everything that I have just heard but, instead of following up on that, I will confine my remarks to Ukraine and its implications.
We, the West, have probably done enough to enable Ukraine to avoid defeat, but not enough to enable it to win. So we have probably created the conditions for a long war, and certainly for the very substantial further destruction of large parts of Ukraine. That policy is probably unsustainable domestically, and it is certainly unacceptable to leave the Ukrainians in such a position. Given what is at stake—the noble Lords, Lord King, Lord Ricketts and Lord Kerr, among many others, have set out what is at stake—there will therefore need to be a development of current policy and messaging in a number of important respects.
First, we need sharply to accelerate the rearmament of Ukraine, to the point that it can decisively repel the invasion, and as quickly as possible. This will mean abandoning most of the self-imposed restrictions currently deployed by many western countries and will also mean much more co-ordination between them in the supply of weaponry.
Secondly, we need to the clarify the war aim. This is Ukraine’s war, not ours, but it is already clear that a minimal war aim of the Ukrainians will be a return to the frontiers prior to 24 February. That means the expulsion of the Russians from the Donbass, including the territory occupied by them after 2014.
Thirdly, the West now needs to clarify that it will do whatever is required economically to impair Russia’s war-fighting capability. This may, in turn, require crippling Russia’s economy. To achieve that, some western countries will have to abandon the notion that they can somehow hurt the architects of this war and secure a change of policy in Russia without hurting the country at large, or can avoid significant costs to themselves. The West is funding both sides of this war on a grand scale, and to carry on with this indefinitely would be as absurd as it is unethical.
Oil and gas revenues are crucial, of course. Well over €50 billion has been paid by EU countries to Russia since the start of the war, and it is that money that is partly—even substantially—funding it. Germany, in particular, has made a major mistake by exposing itself to systemic energy dependency. The huge payments for fossil fuels have to be brought to an end more quickly than is currently planned. Of course, that will mean some economic pain. For Germany, in particular, it will mean eating some humble pie—the same humble pie, incidentally, that it served up a decade ago to countries in the eurozone’s southern tier over their profligate fiscal policies.
Fourthly, leading western countries now need, in my view, collectively to underwrite the Ukrainian economy. They need publicly to clarify that, whatever it takes, the Ukrainian economy and banking system will continue to function. So far, the West’s economic support, both bilateral and multilateral, has fallen well short of such a commitment.
I end with a broader observation about the origins of the war and its consequences. We are engaged in this proxy war because it is in our security interests. In doing so, we are reasserting the rule of law in international society—law based on a mutual recognition of the legitimacy of other states to exist and to secure their frontiers. Behind it lies a common-sense principle: do not invade my house and I will not invade yours.
Twenty years ago, great damage was done to international stability and the rule of law by the doctrine of regime change and its accompanying neoconservative rhetoric to justify the invasion of Iraq. The language of regime change was always likely to be used by rogue states to justify interference and the invasion of their neighbours—and so it has proved this time. Since then, we have had, among many others, Georgia, Crimea and now the 24 February invasion. So we are all now paying a heavy price for past failures of foreign and defence policy—a point made, in different ways, by the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Dobbs.
Now, however, we have an opportunity to repair some of the damage. If the West remains resolute in upholding international law, if these events trigger the reinvigoration of NATO and enlargement, and if we and our allies honour the increases in defence spending that some have already promised, some good can yet come out of this shocking war.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I begin by making a point which the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, made a little earlier: if, following the referendum, we had opted to stay within the single market but at the same time to leave the European Union, we could have avoided the current, totally predictable problems of Northern Ireland. But I want to talk this evening about NATO. I recently asked to be dropped from the UK delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly after having been a member of it for 34 years, with a short break in the middle. In recent years, I have become increasingly concerned—especially over the last few years—that NATO has become much more sleepy than it was in its heyday.
Let me give some examples of what I mean. The first is the intolerable 16 years or so between deciding that it wanted to build a huge new headquarters across the road and beginning to occupy it. Next is the refusal of the Secretary-General—I am bound to say I am not an admirer of that person—to address questions from me and others about the serious criticisms made to NATO by the auditors. Also, I have become aware of late realisations of the problems of moving vital equipment between member states, in terms of both permits and access—issues which it should have been aware of decades ago. But more important is the cynical lack of action by some member states, such as Belgium, to implement the target of 2% of GDP that was entered into at the Welsh summit some years ago. Finally, there is the tolerant approach of some states, such as Turkey, to the continued emergence of Russian militarism. These are all examples of my reservations about NATO, and there are others.
So, I ask the Government whether they will encourage NATO in their discussions with it to jump up and build further on its reawakened enthusiasm post the Ukraine war as our principal safeguard for a peaceful world. One of the things I encourage the Government to press on NATO is a revisitation of that 2% spending target. So many Members of your Lordships’ House have made the point, which I very much agree with, that 2% is outdated and we have to rethink it.
Next, I am sure there is more that NATO, and particularly some member states, could do to continue to give maximum support to Ukraine in its current valiant struggles. Also, I believe that NATO should be prepared to accommodate Sweden and Finland quickly, if that is their wish. The key thing is to get this done quickly and to avoid mischief from Putin in the meantime. Next, NATO should be pressed to be prepared to deploy non-aggressive battlegroups in fellow NATO states if it becomes necessary, in the same admirable way that it has put these small, non-aggressive battlegroups into the Baltic countries and Poland over the last few years, which I have applauded very much. NATO should also be prepared to give equipment support to non-member states such as Georgia and Moldova where Russia already has a controversial military presence—for instance, in South Ossetia and Transnistria, both of which I have visited over the years and in both of which I have seen the Russian military presence for myself.
Finally, in my view, NATO—and all of us—should make it plain to Russia that we are happy to welcome it into the civilised world once it has totally renounced barbarism and international mischief.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, in a world of nuclear stockpiles and proliferation risks, our generation has been extraordinarily fortunate—but I worry for our children and grandchildren. Any regime which is prepared to see upwards of 20,000 of its troops killed and thousands injured, create 5 million-plus refugees and brutally devastate a country is quite capable of pressing the nuclear button, be it on the battlefield or strategic. Morality has long gone. Thus, it is only the threat of massive retaliation which holds it back—hence I welcome the very recent decision to press ahead with the £2 billion Dreadnought submarine programme, with four new submarines built in Barrow expected to go into service from the 2030s with a likely 30-year lifespan. We have no alternative. Let us hope that the programme is not beset by historic delays and cost overruns. Last week’s PAC report is hardly encouraging, saying that the MoD’s
“corporate culture is still too traditional and resistant to change or criticism, and it still does not have nearly enough people with the financial skills to effectively manage one of the government’s most challenging portfolios.”
We can but hope.
In last week’s New Statesman, Andrew Marr drew our attention to the first words on defence on the SNP website:
“The SNP has never and will never support the retention or renewal of Trident. We believe that nuclear weapons are immoral, ineffective and expensive.”
I cannot believe that the brave Scottish people will go along with this selfish position, relying on others to shoulder the nuclear risk, given current circumstances.
The coming together of NATO in common cause over Ukraine is obviously welcome—as is the intention of Finland and Sweden to apply to join, given their significant military capabilities. However, I do question the grandstanding of our Prime Minister in signing defence pacts seemingly without parliamentary debate or approval, particularly given our overstretched and underresourced Armed Forces.
We must recognise the risk that a wounded, somewhat humiliated and increasingly beleaguered Russia might lash out in an unpredictable and very dangerous way. We must remain on maximum guard. Yes, post Ukraine we will rightly have to try to reach some accommodation with Russia, however difficult this may be. But we have to face the possibility—perhaps the unthinkable possibility —of nuclear conflict, by design, by accident or by miscalculation, however horrific this would be. Nuclear terrorism, of course, is also always possible. Casualties in our crowded island would be appalling, but there would be millions of survivors, so I have four questions for the Minister who is replying, and perhaps he could get the appropriate department to write back to me.
First, are there any booklets or information on the Government’s website advising the public in the event of a nuclear threat or attack? Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord True, said in this House in March that a mobile phone-based emergency alerting system would be launched in the summer. What is the latest update on this? Thirdly, do the Government have any policy at all, or give any advice, on the construction of underground bunkers or protective shelters? Fourthly, the 2020 national risk register says:
“The government maintains national stocks of medical treatments with arrangements in place for how these would be distributed in an emergency.”
Could the Minister elaborate further on these stocks? I have to say that our early experience with Covid is hardly reassuring in this regard.
Finally, given a likely enlarged NATO, which has been referred to on many occasions during this debate, and certainly a more united one, will Her Majesty’s Government take a lead in endeavouring to rationalise current wasteful allied duplicated defence procurement spend with greater interoperabilities? This would be a huge step forward.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, 1 July will see the 25th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China. “One country, two systems”—which might have been a template for Taiwan—has been smashed to smithereens, as was graphically underlined by last week’s arrests. I have a number of questions about how we respond to this and particularly about the place of trade with a country which crushes dissent and which stands accused by our own Foreign Secretary, Elizabeth Truss, of committing genocide against the Uighur people of Xinjiang. In doing so, I refer to my non-financial interests declared in the register.
Do the Government Front Bench think it is licit to promote trade with a country accused of genocide; a country which threatens Taiwan daily; a country which disregards—as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said to me in response to a question recently—every single one of the 30 articles in the 1948 convention on human rights, not least in Hong Kong? Despite Project Defend, which was described to me and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, during a helpful meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, the UK’s trade deficit with China more than tripled last year. Our imports were valued at more than £40 billion more than our exports, while UK exports declined by 34%. We spent £10 billion on NHS procurements from China, which is the size of our entire diminished ODA budget. Some of the purchased products were defective and some were produced fraudulently. Most could and should have been made by British manufacturers, but if competitors use slave labour, they will always be able to outcompete British interests. What difference has Project Defend made to that? What would the Government regard as its success?
In this context, when the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, comes to reply, I would like to know if he is for or against the sale of Newport Wafer Fab to a Chinese company. Does he disbelieve or believe the CCP when it says its objective is to take control of semiconductor chip production and acquire intellectual property? Could he tell us how many UK businesses in the semiconductor supply chain are foreign owned? What assessment has been made of the value of Newport Wafer Fab’s intellectual property and the sensitivity of any defence contracts it currently has? How does this fit with the objective of a digital markets Bill? Will he say what impact the proposed takeover will have on the UK’s stated ambition in the integrated review to be a digital and data hub?
In 2019, the United States blacklisted China General Nuclear, accusing it of stealing nuclear secrets. Where does this leave the United Kingdom and, for instance, Hinkley Point? Where does it leave Sizewell? Surely allowing a company linked to the CCP to be involved in building a nuclear plant at Bradwell, just 50 miles from London, must cause the noble Lord some concern.
With human rights in free fall, I hope the noble Lord will tell us whether the Procurement Bill, mentioned in the gracious Speech, will follow the admirable lead of the Department of Health and its Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, who has banned Hikvision surveillance cameras in his department. A company linked with the Uighur surveillance state in Xinjiang has 1 million cameras in the United Kingdom. Some of our Five Eyes allies have banned and sanctioned Hikvision. Why have we not?
Given reports from our intelligence services of CCP agents at work in this very Parliament, can the Minister explain why the foreign agent registration scheme has been omitted from the National Security Bill? Some of these issues are addressed in the September 2021 report on China, trade and security from the International Relations and Defence Select Committee, subtitled A Strategic Void. When will the Government provide time for it to be debated?
I finish where I began, in Hong Kong, where in 2019 I witnessed, as an election monitor, 3 million people, equivalent to 71% of registered voters, voting for democracy. By contrast, a handful of cadres have just appointed John Lee, the enforcer of the national security law, as the new Chief Executive. While HSBC welcomed Lee’s appointment, G7 Foreign Ministers and the European Union have spelt out their “grave concern” about the
“continued assault on political pluralism and fundamental freedoms.”
UK trade and economic deals, such as JETCO, were suspended in response to the national security law under which last week’s arrests were made. I hope that, when he comes to reply, the noble Lord will take the opportunity today to repudiate reports that these initiatives may be restarted and assert that, in the long term, we must strengthen our international alliances and be united in response to Chinese belligerence.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, in 2002 young British men we had grown up with travelled from Batley, a small town in Yorkshire, to Gujarat in India for a holiday. Two brothers, their nephew and a friend were being driven back after a tour of the Taj Mahal when their car was attacked by an angry mob. Three were murdered, the driver was set alight and the nephew, despite his injuries, survived. These men became victims of a spate of violence now known as the Gujarat riots in which thousands lost their lives, women and girls were raped, beaten and burnt, and homes and businesses were set alight. The Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat at that time was one Narendra Modi.
A leaked report at the time by the British high commission in New Delhi specifically blamed the violence on Chief Minister Modi and his Government. It led to Narendra Modi being described as the “Butcher of Gujarat”, with travel bans imposed on him by many, including the United States, while we in Britain imposed a total boycott of Modi, refusing to engage with him for a decade. Our collective assessment of and response to Modi was right at the time.
Years later, Modi looked set to become Prime Minister of India, and the US, the UK and others found ourselves having to unban and re-engage, not because we agreed with him nor had any truck with his ideology, but because it was expedient to do so. Indeed, we said as much, making it clear that engagement was not endorsement. Let me say clearly: we are right to engage with the Prime Minister of India, whoever that may happen to be. India is a country of 1.4 billion people, a rising economy, an important trade partner and a secular and diverse nation with an important and valued diaspora in Britain. India is not Modi, but more importantly Modi is not what India was envisaged to be.
The father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, preached non-violence and fought for a secular India. Indeed, it was this message that led to his early demise, tragically assassinated at the hands of a right-wing extremist, Nathuram Godse, a follower of a political ideology known as Hindutva. Hindutva is not Hinduism. The great faith of Hinduism, one of the oldest religions in the world, practised for thousands of years and rooted in spirituality, is one that has always co-existed with other beliefs. Hindutva, however, diminishes plural secular societies, is a political violent ideology from the late 1800s, underpins the far-right movement the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or RSS, is influenced and inspired by the ideologies of Hitler and Mussolini, and was banned by Indian Prime Minister Nehru. This lays out the tension in today’s India. On the one hand is a diverse, multifaith, secular India and on the other a country where the ideology of Hindutva underpins the politics of power, with the once-banned RSS now playing centre stage, engaged in politics through its political wing, the BJP, and in violence through its mass training camps, led by Prime Minister Modi, an ex-RSS pracharak—a senior propagator.
What we saw play out in Gujarat in 2002 under Chief Minister Modi, we are now, tragically, seeing play out across India under Prime Minister Modi. From lynchings to burnings of homes, lootings to rape, the ideology of Hindutva and its promoters has attracted widespread criticism from Indian civil society, which is committed to a secular state as enshrined in the Indian constitution. Discrimination and harassment of Christian, Muslim, Sikh and Dalit communities, attacks on those in interfaith marriages, the passing of anti-conversion and citizenship amendment laws, targeted killings, burning and bulldozing of minority homes, desecrations of places of worship, boycotts of businesses based on religion and even citing Mother Teresa and her work as a “Christian conspiracy” are now mainstream.
For years, Indian civil society has been sounding the alarm bells. Women’s groups in 2020 accused Modi of encouraging “communal hate and fear-mongering”, making
“women of all communities feel more insecure and threatened”.
Civil servants earlier this year took the unprecedented step of writing an open letter to Modi, accusing the state of being “fully complicit” in the
“frenzy of hate filled destruction”
targeting not just minorities but the constitution itself, criticising Modi’s silence on the violence as “deafening” and arguing that the law, instead of being an instrument for maintaining peace and harmony, had become the means by which minorities were being kept in a state of perpetual fear. They urged Modi to
“call for an end to the politics of hate that governments under your party’s control are so assiduously practising.”
At best, Modi and his senior Ministers never condemn the violence; at worst, their rhetoric, through words on the public record, instigates and feeds it.
I understand that we often have to hold our nose and trade with those with whom we would rather not, but as we move forward with our trade and co-operation agreement with India, let us not forget our fellow citizens who were murdered there and have been denied justice and even the dignity of a burial—Shakeel Dawood and Saeed Dawood, the boys from Batley whose remains have never been returned, and Mohammed Aswat. Twenty years on, I urge my noble friend to meet the Dawood family and ask for the return of their relatives’ remains. It is time to bring them home.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I endorse the very powerful arguments produced by a number of colleagues, such as the noble Lord, Lord Lang, in favour of our spending more money on defence and taking defence requirements in this country rather more seriously than we have in the past.
I have been transfixed over the last few weeks, as I imagine many others have, by the extraordinary courage and selfless self-sacrifice of the Ukrainians, who found themselves victims of an attack by Russia. It is a real David and Goliath story, which, so far, has had the right ending. But we must make sure that it continues to have the right ending. It is very important that Ukraine retains its independence and existing borders—though innocent, it has been made to suffer by having territory taken away from it—and that it continues to be a major force in the western world. As soon as possible, if it wants to, it should be allowed to become a member of the European Union and NATO. I greatly look forward to that happening.
I think the Ukrainians would take it very much amiss if there were any attempt on the part of their western allies to delay their entry into those organisations, which they thoroughly deserve to be part of after conducting themselves as they have in the last few weeks. I hope it will be fine, but I am still concerned that people are talking about making special concessions to the Russians—not upsetting them too much or humiliating them and so forth. If they are humiliated, it is entirely their fault. No one asked them to invade Ukraine, so we should not have too much sympathy with that.
This has been a very good debate. We have managed to make it clear that all is not well in the defence of peace in the world. It is very important that we keep these things under very close review and continue to keep the Government alert to the need to pay attention and contribute properly to the cost of defence. If you do not have any defence, you invite attack and its consequences, with which we are all too familiar.
Lord Burnett (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register and declare that I had the honour to serve in the Royal Marines. The threat from Russia is real, and there are threats of aggressive action against our allies in the Middle and Far East. There is all-party support for the actions we are taking with NATO to assist the brave people of Ukraine. The costs are considerable and justified, but they should come out of the reserves, not the defence budget.
I also put on record, like many others, my support for an increase in defence spending to at least 3% of GDP. There were reports in the Times on 6 May of a significant increase in defence expenditure to be announced this autumn. Can the Minister of State confirm these reports?
The Government must urgently start the programme to rebuild our amphibious fleet. The orders for the escort vessels must be placed without any further delay. Our reserves of weapons, ammunition, equipment and other logistics must be replenished. This is vital for our war-fighting capability. The United States keeps impressive reserves of logistics and has the capacity to deliver them. The United Kingdom and other European NATO countries rely heavily on the United States for defence support. We and other European NATO countries spend far less on defence than the United States in actual terms and as a percentage of GDP. Although there are other factors to be taken into account, we should prepare not only for change in our national contributions to defence but for other changes within NATO as a consequence of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
I welcome the steps that the Governments of Finland and Sweden are taking to join NATO. I hope that this will be completed in the very near future. Both countries have much to offer NATO in terms of know-how, personnel, equipment and capability, not least in Arctic warfare. The Royal Marines are the United Kingdom’s Arctic and high north warfare specialists. Within the Royal Marines, this expertise is largely concentrated in two outstanding units: our Mountain Leaders and 45 Commando, based in Arbroath, both of which are frequently deployed overseas. I draw noble Lords’ attention to an excellent series on BBC2, shown at 8 pm on Sundays, called “Commando: Britain’s Ocean Warriors”.
Of course, our Royal Marine capability includes that on land as well as at or from the sea. Noble Lords will see at first hand the highest standards of our Royal Marine Mountain Leaders and marines going through Arctic warfare training. The Government should authorise an increase in the personnel numbers the Royal Marines are permitted to recruit, with no dilution of the highest standards demanded, to combat the Russian threat and show solidarity with the Scandinavian countries with which we have built such strong links over so many decades.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, the gracious Speech affirmed the United Kingdom’s commitment to uphold democracy and to champion security around the world. Time allows me to raise only two related issues.
First, in Nigeria, Islamist terrorist attacks continue in northern and central states, with almost daily reports of killings, rape, abductions, mass forced displacement and land-grabs. The human rights organisation Inter- society reports that 4,400 Christians were killed within a nine-month period in 2021, in addition to the tens of thousands killed since 2009. Many others have disappeared, assumed dead, or have been taken into slavery. Thousands of students have been abducted from school, while hundreds of churches have been destroyed and entire communities overrun by jihadists. Many Muslims have also been killed. It is within this context that my small NGO, Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, seeks to provide life-saving assistance, especially in the Middle Belt, where millions are displaced but where, I am sorry to say, UK government resources have been very inadequate.
I have personally witnessed the ruin of homes, farmland, food stores, churches, pastors’ homes and an orphanage, all attacked by Islamist Fulani militia in the past seven months. I stood at the grave of an 80 year-old woman called Sarah, who miraculously survived an Islamist attack on her village but was so traumatised by what she saw that she died of a heart attack. In a neighbouring village, a 98 year-old woman was burned alive by Islamist Fulani militia. Before being thrown into her burning home, she was mocked by her killers, who said, “You look cold, Grandma. Come this way.” I also heard detailed accounts of the deliberate targeting and slaughter of children, and people being hacked to death with machetes as they ran from rapid gunfire. Just last week, a young student, Deborah Samuel, was killed—beaten and burned in Sokoto by a mob falsely accusing her of blasphemy. I plead with Her Majesty’s Government to do more to apply pressure to prevent the murderous attacks on innocent civilians and to provide desperately needed aid.
I turn briefly to the tragic situations in Armenia and the historic Armenian land of Nagorno-Karabakh. It was invaded by Azerbaijan in 2020, and civilians suffered daily military offensives and widespread destruction of civilian targets, including schools, religious sites and the maternity hospital in Stepanakert—I saw the evidence of this. These are war crimes, horribly reminiscent of what is happening in Ukraine. I witnessed a very different Azerbaijan from that described by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Azerbaijan has repeatedly failed to keep the peace agreement, which requires the release of all prisoners of war. Many Armenians remain in captivity—Armenia has released all its Azerbaijani prisoners—with evidence of humiliating torture by Azeri captors. For example, I wept with one mother who had received pictures of her son’s dismembered and decapitated body.
There are continuing reports of Azeri military offensives in Armenia itself, against Armenian villages in Syunik province, which I visited just last month. By megaphones and loudspeakers, villagers are ordered to leave their homes, while Azeri forces continue to accumulate military equipment and manpower in the region.
Serious concerns also remain over the fate of hundreds of Armenian Christian monuments and ancient cultural heritage sites, which are now under Azeri control, some of which have already been destroyed during the war or since—another war crime under international law.
In Baku there is a gruesome, grotesque victory park where they have a corridor of the helmets of scores of Armenian soldiers, and there are also grotesque mannequins of Armenian soldiers.
The United Kingdom’s consistent failure to call Azerbaijan to account could be seen as complicity. There must be no impunity for the most serious international crimes. Perpetrators of atrocities must be held to account. I hope very much that the Government will no longer turn what seems to be a deaf ear to the suffering of the Armenian people in Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia itself, and of the people of Nigeria.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the Motion for an humble Address, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to a bold legislative programme which will set us back on a track that will allow us to move forward to unlocking the full potential of this country.
Russia is now on the back foot in its completely unjustified and heinous attack on the sovereignty of Ukraine, and history will remember kindly the role that Her Majesty’s Government have played and continue to play in taking the early initiatives and mobilising global support for our Ukrainian allies in their hour of need.
In acknowledging that the first duty of a Government is to protect and safeguard the lives of their citizens, I am pleased that through the National Security Bill the Government have committed themselves to a complete overhaul of the espionage law, with tougher measures to tackle state-backed sabotage and foreign interference. I welcome that, as part of that Bill, the illicit acquisition for or disclosure to a foreign power of sensitive trade, commercial or economic information will be made an offence. Similarly, I have high hopes that the Bill will strengthen our democracy by disrupting disinformation and preventing foreign attacks against our electoral process.
There is a geopolitical crisis at play. To the east, China continues with its zero-Covid lockdowns, and across the globe the legacy of Covid continues to wreak havoc with our financial markets, the logistics of trade and even the stability of some states. The pandemic and the war in Ukraine are just two examples which demonstrate that the international order of old, and its institutions, are crying out for reform. Therefore, I hope that, in moving forward with the legislative agenda, the Government will be both enabled and emboldened to assert some influence on the world stage and cause the much-needed reform of the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and NATO to accelerate with speed. The importance of NATO cannot be stressed enough, and we must work harder to encourage other members of the alliance to honour their obligations to this organisation.
I look forward to supporting the Government as they bring forward the “super seven” Brexit Bills. If recent events such as the vaccine rollout have taught us anything, it is that Britain thrives and leads when red tape and bureaucracy are eliminated. Through these Brexit Bills the Government will have an unparalleled opportunity to take every part of the United Kingdom forward to better times, to strengthen our union and to protect our cause of freedom around the world. However, before these Bills are given consideration, the Government must face up to and address the situation in Northern Ireland, even if this means triggering Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol in its entirety.
The United Kingdom must continue to capitalise on its strengths as a global trading nation, forging ambitious trade agreements with like-minded regions and nations that value innovation, ease of doing business, investment in skills and technology, and entrepreneurship. In commenting on this, I draw attention to my declared position as co-chair of the UAE-UK Business Council. To give one example, nearly 13,000 British companies are currently exporting their goods and services to the United Arab Emirates. They are attracted not only by the strength of commercial opportunity there and the business-friendly environment, but because the country has free trade agreements in place with numerous other countries, most recently India and Israel. That means that the UAE can also be a gateway for British exporters to these other markets, and that is why it is essential that we start getting the same kind of free trade agreements in place.
Our reputation as an attractive place to do business has also encouraged large flows of investment into the UK, which has significant social benefit. Again with reference to the United Arab Emirates, Mubadala Investment Company last year invested £800 million in our national digital infrastructure, which will ensure that people in all parts of the UK will have access to fast and reliable internet services, ultimately creating 16,000 jobs down the supply chain.
There are many other parts of Her Majesty’s gracious Speech that I would like to have addressed but I fear that time is against me, so I conclude by welcoming the programme with my full support.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
The gracious Speech indicated that the Government will
“lead the way in championing security around the world … work closely with international partners to maintain a united NATO and address the most pressing global security challenges”
and continue to invest in our gallant Armed Forces. I would observe that even before the gracious Speech, this Government had already, in the context of Ukraine, rediscovered the wider utility of the military instrument of national power. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that defence and security have suddenly become the major currency of foreign policy. It seems of late, for example, that the dominant headline resulting from most international ministerial visits—to India, Norway, Japan, Australia and Sweden—is about the strengthening of defence and security relationships. Given the state of the world, this is all to be welcomed and we should take great pride in the quality and capability of our Armed Forces being a positive discriminator of our status as a nation on the global stage.
What about the future investment in our Armed Forces to meet and continue this policy ambition? The scale and nature of the Government’s intentions in this respect are far less clear, so I offer some thoughts on this, and I do so in the context of the debates I have listened to in this Chamber over the past few years. It seems to me that in those debates there is always far too much focus on what you might call the input metrics of military capabilities: how many soldiers have we got, how many main battle tanks, how many fighter squadrons? Indeed, a concern over how many ships we have has almost become an institutionalised reflex of this House. I would never underestimate the importance of numbers and I share many of those concerns, but I would always put allies as a far more important factor in assessing military capability choices. Given the security challenges of the age, collective security is the only way to achieve global stability, and the only way to achieve the scale of the capability truly required. I would, in the design of our Armed Forces capability, always place a premium on those capabilities which help to secure allies and alliances.
In this respect, the United Kingdom, as it seeks to continue to enjoy the benefits of global influence, has some unique advantages. We are a nuclear power; we are the leading NATO nation in Europe; we pioneer smaller groupings of like-minded nations, such as the Joint Expeditionary Force; and we enjoy the intelligence benefits of the Five Eyes, the global security connections of AUKUS and FPDA and defence relationships throughout the Middle East. As has been demonstrated in no small part by Ukraine, we also know how to train and assist partner nations, and to do so in ways that are professional, respectful and not demeaning.
The qualities that bring about these defence relationships are not naturally gifted. They are the result of investment, but the investments are not primarily in exquisite platforms. Rather, they are in the human quality of our people, our training, our organisational competence, our command and control systems and our intelligence capability.
It is no accident that the quality of Ukraine’s performance has been more to do with intelligence superiority, human motivation and professional competence than with numbers or firepower alone. But there is another lesson from the war in Ukraine, which relates to a different but equally critical alliance. It is the one that we as a nation must invest more in. It is the relationship that we have with our defence industry and our defence supply chain. In the absence of conventional warfare over the past couple of decades, we have taken risks with weapon stockpiles, with obsolescence and with spare parts. We call this the hollowing out of defence capability and most nations indulge in it. It is one way of maintaining the illusion of capability without having to afford the reality. As Ukraine is proving, however, to an extent on all sides of the fight, conventional war involves stunning rates of consumption and reveals levels of peacetime stockpiles which simply cannot keep pace with demand. We desperately need to invest in what we call war-fighting resilience.
I hope that when we in this House come to debate our own national balance of investment in future defence capability—in the context of more money, I hope—we do not simply revert to an internal competition based on the input metrics of platform numbers, but rather something that understands alliances and properly weighs the investments needed in human quality, superior intelligence, command and control and the resilience and sustainability that rest on adequate stockpiles, robust supply chains and, let us face it, kit that works. If we get this right, we will continue to enjoy the respect and loyalty of allies and stand a far better chance of collectively delivering the stability that we all desire.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, as we speak, the people of Ukraine are facing one of the worst times in their history. The Russian invasion of this sovereign country is completely illegal, brutal and uncalled for. The indiscriminate bombardment of Ukrainian towns, cities and villages is causing mass destruction and the loss and injury of innocent people, forcing migration and displacement on a large scale. The people of Ukraine deserve every bit of assistance they can get, and we will continue to support the Government as they give them all possible humanitarian and diplomatic support as well as military equipment and training.
I have some understanding of the suffering, pain and physical and mental trauma that the people of Ukraine are going through, as someone born in a conflict zone called Kashmir, a state divided between India and Pakistan, which is waiting for a UN-promised plebiscite to determine its destiny. Over the years, its people have witnessed the loss of more than 100,000 lives, the continued violation of human rights, divided families, three full-scale wars and sporadic border skirmishes. Most of the human rights abuses recorded are in Indian-administered Kashmir. According to reputable human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the UN Commission for Human Rights, the Indian army is involved in raids and crackdowns in residential homes, illegal arrests and detentions, torture, rape and murder, with complete impunity under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. Thousands of young people have been partially or completely blinded by targeted pellet gunfire from the Indian armed forces. Thousands of women are known as “half widows” because their husbands have gone missing and, to add to their agony, 3,000 unmarked mass graves have been discovered. Only an independent investigation can tell whether any of their husbands or relatives are among those buried in these mass graves. Prominent political leaders such as Shabir Shah, Asiya Andrabi and Yasin Malik have been incarcerated for a very long time. Their families fear for their lives.
Affiliated to the United Nations, the Jammu and Kashmir Council of Human Rights regularly reports to the UN about ongoing human suffering in Kashmir. Genocide Watch has declared that there is a genocide in the making in India, including in Kashmir. In recent years, the Indian Government have taken even more draconian steps to oppress the Kashmiri people, by withdrawing Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian constitution, dismissing the regional government, declaring the state a union territory, arresting tens of thousands of people and cutting off all communication links, including the internet service. Although some of these extraordinary measures have been partly restored, it is far from being a free, open and democratic region.
What I have described is the tip of the iceberg. The UN Commission for Human Rights has made repeated requests for free access to investigate these reports of human rights abuses, but those requests have never been respected by the Indian Government. This is not the first time I have raised the plight of the Kashmiri people. I am sure the Minister is aware of the situation. Will the Minister to address the following points individually in his response? I understand he may not have time to answer them all in detail today, but I will be equally happy if he writes to me with full answers and places a copy in the Library.
First, does the Minister consider that the human rights of the Kashmiri people are equal to the rights of Ukrainians and other countries’ communities? Secondly, if yes, why is India missing from the FCDO’s annual list of countries giving rise to human rights concerns? Thirdly, the UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, so what are the British Government proposing to do to persuade the UN to investigate the human rights abuses, particularly the unmarked mass graves, in Kashmir? Fourthly, I understand that the Minister is visiting India in the near future. Will he discuss these matters with his counterpart and provide feedback to Parliament? Finally, if India continues to violate international human rights laws, will the Government consider trade sanctions against that country?
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I want to make some points about defence, international trade and international development. The defence I shall speak about is the defence against pathogens and the challenges to biosecurity inherent in international trade and globalisation. Biosecurity is something we have too often taken for granted, probably because of our island status, but no man is an island in the age of globalisation, nor, indeed, is any animal or plant, and it is animal and plant health security I shall refer to particularly.
The latest and most potent challenge to our livestock health is African swine fever, which has killed millions of pigs in China, is spreading remorselessly west through continental Europe and now commonly occurs in Romania and Poland. Yet, very recently, Her Majesty’s Government have for the fourth time delayed introducing important border checks on animal products from the EU after Brexit, checks which strengthen our biosecurity safeguards against diseases such as African swine fever. Will the Minister confirm when such checks will be introduced?
What about plants and trees? Although I am a vet, your Lordships may not be surprised to learn that I am also interested in the health of trees. We have huge targets for tree planting to mitigate climate change. The Climate Change Committee advocates planting 90 million to 120 million trees a year until 2050. That is an excellent but very challenging aspiration; but where, I ask, are the saplings coming from? Over the past 30 years, more than 20 imported tree pathogens and pests have devastated the UK’s native woodland, particularly our ash and oak trees. It is estimated that Ash dieback alone will cost the UK £15 billion in consequential effects.
All our efforts to reforest could fail in the face of disease unless we can completely avoid the import of tree pathogens. The best way to do that, I suggest, is to grow our own saplings. The Minister may not be able to answer this, but do we have the nursery capacity in the UK to provide all the saplings we need, and what are the Government doing to ensure that? Biosecurity is like insurance: it has a recurrent cost, and the benefits are not immediately noticeable until a catastrophic event occurs. Let us be wise before the event, not after it.
On trade and animal welfare, we must guard against importing products produced to lower animal welfare standards. That is not simply protectionism against what would be an unfair playing field but is about maintaining and applying our ethical standards globally. We will have time, I hope, to consider that elsewhere when we debate the Australia deal under CRaG. Suffice it to say that there are some concerns with the Australia deal, particularly if it is a template for many other subsequent deals.
Concern about welfare also extends to environmental standards. As your Lordships will be aware, the metric of net zero does not include emissions from imported products. It would be easy for us to try to meet net zero by exporting emissions. Take beef, for example. In the UK, we produce it on largely grass-based systems, on land ill-suited for crops, yet our greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of beef are half the global average. However, we risk destroying that industry at a time when, whether you like it or not, global demand for meat is set to rise.
The Government’s recently published international development strategy has considerable implications for the control of tropical diseases. Time forbids me discussing this further, but I note that the Government remain committed to a return to spending 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance. When will the Government next review this situation? The UK has a proud history of research into and collaborative support for the control of tropical diseases. Apart from the fact that supporting health improvement in the most disadvantaged countries in the world is a humane thing to do, data show that it is one of the most cost-effective forms of aid. At a time when mass migration and global pandemics are two of the most serious global challenges, it is surely in our own interests to address global health inequalities, which are a major impediment to social and economic development in low and middle-income countries.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, on foreign affairs and how we might now best meet new challenges, a common theme runs through three issues: a well-focused yet adjusted defence strategy; a robust encouragement of improved educational opportunities worldwide; and a proactive international policy to achieve the better treatment of refugees and migrants.
Regarding a common factor between these issues and aspirations, I am glad that this debate will be replied to by my noble friend Lord Ahmad, for he is the Minister responsible for the United Kingdom’s continuing membership of the 46-state human rights affiliation of the Council of Europe, in which institution and in whose efficacy I, along with a great many of your Lordships, share a great deal of respect and confidence. I also count myself fortunate to be a member of its Parliament and the current chairman of its Committee on Culture and Education.
On how we may see fit to adjust our defence strategy, not least since Russia’s recent attack on Ukraine, no doubt there are two elements that might otherwise appear to be inconsistent with one another, yet, by co-existing together at the moment, are instead particularly relevant. The first is the hard power of strengthening our own capability—to which need my noble friend Lord Lang, among others, ably referred—and strengthening the capability of NATO. Here, the Prime Minister should be much commended for his present efforts.
Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, emphasised, there is the soft power of ways and means to assist democratic civil society in Russia, as well as in certain other states where their people are subjected to despotic rule. Since its formation in 1949, the Council of Europe has demonstrated much expertise in this context, successfully promoting civic involvement, local democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
Last week, in Strasbourg, President Macron called for an increase in multilateral co-operation among the free nations of Europe beyond the EU—or among those 19 nations additional to the 27 of the EU. That means strengthening the Council of Europe, to which these additional non-EU states also belong. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that now is the time to take action through the Council of Europe to support democratic civil society in Russia and in other parts of Europe? If so, is he as well in favour of joining our other 45 colleague states in contributing our own national funds in order to compensate for those that have been lost, now that Russia is no longer in the Council of Europe?
During the United Kingdom’s recent G7 presidency, our Government correctly stressed the importance of enhancing education opportunities for building more stable and prosperous societies worldwide, including by using digital technology and developing online learning structures. What plans do the Government have to follow up this global education initiative that the United Kingdom has launched, and within what timetable? To what extent will the Government make use of existing successful Council of Europe interactive online education programmes such as OCEAN? Immediately now, how far can the design of such programmes also facilitate our present task of providing education here for Ukrainian refugee children?
Like many other countries in Europe, the UK has shown outstanding humanitarian support for people fleeing the Russian war in Ukraine. For his current work, I know your Lordships will follow me in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Harrington, the recently appointed Minister for Refugees. Positive developments include the integration of Ukrainians into our UK labour market, where workforce shortages exist.
At the same time, the UK is criticised for having concluded an agreement with Rwanda to cope with the significant increase in boat arrivals across the Channel. Will the Minister consider that greater mutual benefit could arise from organising and supporting UK employers, commerce and industry to recruit, in a targeted manner, foreign migrants and refugees before they embark on irregular routes to the UK in the first place? Does he also concur that European political co-operation should be strengthened between the UK and other member states of the Council of Europe in migration matters to compensate for the non-applicability of the EU Dublin regulation to the UK—for instance, by concluding return and readmission agreements with France and other Council of Europe member states?
In summary, in the areas of defence, education and migration policy, both working in its own right and as a prominent member of the Council of Europe, the UK, as already outlined, is in a position to make an enormous contribution towards balance and well-being within the international community. We must now act accordingly.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I shall base my remarks on the issue of trade and investment, with specific reference to Northern Ireland.
In the executive summary accompanying the gracious Speech, Her Majesty’s Government set out their intention to grow the economy and address the cost of living, and in the present circumstances that will be very challenging. The summary states:
“We are using our Brexit freedoms to deliver an independent trade policy and strengthen our links with the world’s largest and fastest-growing economies”,
but in relation to Northern Ireland trade I wonder what Brexit freedoms the Government are talking about. The summary continues:
“The Government recognises that this is … a worrying time for businesses given the global situation. Energy prices have increased globally, while businesses are navigating supply chain issues as the world economy recovers from the pandemic and adapts to the shock of war in Ukraine.”
While businesses in other regions of the UK endeavour to strengthen links with the world’s largest and fastest-growing economies, we in Northern Ireland are grappling with a protocol that is destroying business links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is happening in spite of the Government’s pledge to protect and strengthen the UK internal market as part of the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which states:
“The Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the UK internal market … we will legislate to guarantee unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the UK internal market”.
However, the protocol conflicts with the articles of union. Article 6 places citizens in all regions on an equal footing in terms of trade and prohibits barriers to trade within the United Kingdom. A single unified internal market is therefore a key block in the constitutional foundation of the UK, yet the High Court has found that the protocol has subjugated Article 6 of the articles of union, and the constitutional position of Northern Ireland and the essential state functions of the UK have been altered without the express will of the people of Northern Ireland, in clear violation of the Belfast and St Andrews agreements. We were assured that the principles of consent and mutual respect were at the heart of the Belfast agreement, but we know that under the protocol these principles have been binned. I welcome the Government having belatedly acknowledged that the protocol has been built on sinking sand, and that not one unionist party or representative supports its enforced implementation.
No one can deny that the protocol is harming the health, wealth and prosperity of our people. The fact remains that most of the trade in Northern Ireland is to and from our largest market—namely, Great Britain. Products coming into the Province have to be inspected at EU border posts. Many firms in GB will no longer supply to Northern Ireland, which reduces choice for our people, adds unnecessary costs to industry and increases prices to a community that has the lowest disposable income across the UK, thereby increasing poverty and deprivation at a time when the cost of living is significantly rising.
Indeed, some major trading companies claim that a lorry load of goods going into stores in Northern Ireland takes 20 people eight hours to load, because of the paperwork involved. Had that same lorry gone directly to the Republic of Ireland from Great Britain, it could have been loaded in 20% of the time. While only 0.2% of goods going into the European Union flow through Northern Ireland ports, these account for 20% of the total number of EU border checks. This is an absolute disgrace. The protocol itself provides for unilateral action, yet its application leads to serious economic, societal and environmental difficulties or the diversion of trade. No reasonable person can deny that this is happening.
Members of those parties that support the continuation of this situation ought to hang their heads in shame. Some take their stance because of their undying loyalty and allegiance to the European Union, irrespective of the democratic vote across the United Kingdom to leave it, while others do so because of an anti-unionist stance promoting an all-Ireland economy to the detriment of the prosperity of the people and aimed at creating a united Ireland by stealth. The protocol has been the vehicle to energise a significant displacement of trade from GB to the Republic of Ireland, thereby gaining the Republic a competitive advantage in its protocol operation. That is not by chance, but by design.
Our Province deserves better. My party is determined to ensure that, if devolution is to be restored and is to function for all, it must be on the basis of mutual respect and consent. In the past, unionist concerns have been ignored. Northern Ireland deserves to be a respected and worthy part of this United Kingdom, enjoying the prosperity enjoyed by all other regions of that union.
Baroness Fall (Con)
My Lords, we gather today against the bleak backdrop of a horrifying war in Europe—a war that has already claimed the lives and livelihoods of so many Ukrainians, shown us the extraordinary dignity and fight of their people, and reminded us of the values we hold dear yet often take for granted and of the astonishing futility and cruelty of war.
Only a year ago, the focus of this debate would have been elsewhere—on China, Covid, climate and Afghanistan. The decision to withdraw from Afghanistan and the way in which it was done, with little care for or loyalty to the people who put their trust in us over 20 years, was both shaming and strategically ill advised. The message it sent—that the West was weak, divided and not worthy of trust—has been disastrous. We are paying that price now in Ukraine. If ever there was a lesson on the importance of setting an example by our actions, this was one. If we wish to stand for western values, those values must be upheld by us, including in standing by our international obligations.
I commend the Government’s leadership, commitment and compassion during the war in Ukraine. Although, at times, our good intentions have not met with the reality on the ground, the generosity of the British people and commitment of our country have never wavered.
What of our response? For the most part, we in the West have had to meet Russian military might with economic warfare in the form of sanctions, regulation and presiding over a defiant private sector, which has voted with its feet. This has weaponised our economies, politicised our businesses and created a mismatch in timeframes.
On timing, we have the immediate, kinetic war: we watch from the sidelines but we help with equipment and humanitarian aid. Then the sanctions piece takes time to bite. Our hope is that, as it does, we draw Putin away from the battlefield to the negotiating table. The unity and determination of the West in this endeavour should give us great hope and pride. I hope it lasts.
In the longer term, the broader geopolitical landscape looks altered. The emergence or strengthening of the Russia-China axis is unsettling and a reminder that there was a far from unified global response of outrage and condemnation on Ukraine, outside Europe and the USA.
Then there is the role of the private sector. Its swift divestment from Russia is important and added heft to our government-controlled sanctions. In the longer term, we must think about business, its role in foreign policy and how it could be a partnership for good. Then there is the question of who pays for all this. We know the answer: the people of our country are paying the price for peace, especially the poorest in our society whose sacrifices are sure to bite as winter comes. We should brace ourselves and support them in this important joint endeavour. This war does not feel as if it is going to end any time soon. There is a hardening of positions by all the major players and uncertainty as we look ahead. Nuclear threats have become an uncomfortable reality, and any Government would be foolish not to be mindful that a cornered and failing Putin is also eyeing up his vast arsenal.
While our focus is on Ukraine, there is much else at stake. The growing mistrust between China, the US and the West has become one of the defining features of the 21st century. We have to face complex issues in how we respond to a global power which we wish to trade with while being mindful of national security, sovereignty and human rights concerns. We imagine, wrongly, that Covid is behind us, but the undeveloped world remains largely unvaccinated, making us all vulnerable to further mutations and lockdowns. We seem unable to put together the global political will to solve a problem that will surely rebound, and all this against a global economic outlook which is bleak and faltering under the weight of the cost of living crisis exacerbated by the energy crisis and rising inflation. We should also be mindful about the biggest problem on which we need to focus at this time, which is the climate. So let us not forget those who take up the challenge of this difficult time, especially the poorest among us, and let us also remember that as we fly the flag for western democracies we must maintain the highest standards of those values in our own country.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, this is my first Queen’s Speech debate. The whole House was sorry, as was the Monarch herself, that she was not able to deliver it in person, so I attended a state occasion made possible for the first time by the Regency Act 1937—and I do not suppose it will be the last. I pay tribute to my predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Fall. She is a person of great experience at the highest levels of government and there were many interesting points in her speech.
However, before I begin properly, I want to declare an interest in the 22nd century. I hope the House will forgive me for saying this, but yesterday I became a grandfather for the first time.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
And, like any grandparent, I find myself immediately looking ahead at the lifetime of someone born yesterday—literally—who will expect to live into the 22nd century, and I hope very much that he will grow up to live in a stable and secure world, although that is far from certain.
We all know that there is one essential difference between the debate today and the debate that was held last year, and that is the invasion by Russia of Ukraine, which is the President of Russia’s biggest strategic mistake. The war that has followed decisively changes the nature of today’s debate and the way in which we need to rethink our foreign, defence and national security policy to ensure this country’s safety as well as that of western Europe.
In the few minutes at my disposal, I want to emphasise one key consequence of this shift in the kaleidoscope. We must examine as a priority the nature of the relationship between the United Kingdom’s science and technology needs on the one hand, and foreign and national security policy on the other. We are entering an era where the needs of science and technology and of our economy are increasingly going to determine the strategic outlines of our foreign policy. I am not talking about one obvious facet of the current war, which is that it is being fought with increasingly sophisticated weapons made possible by science and technology. Nor am I talking about the equally obvious use and counteruse of cyberwarfare, which is clearly vital to success on today’s battlefield. I want to draw the House’s attention to a different way of looking at our strategic national security.
We need to have regard to how we secure and safeguard the strategically important resources we need, without which we cannot function as an economy or as a society. This key consideration needs to lie at the heart of our international aims. When I say “strategically important resources”, I am thinking of things such as the strategic metals, including the so-called rare earth metals, on which we now rely for so much. The climate change debate reminds us that we all live on a finite planet, but the resources at our disposal are also finite. One real problem is that some of the resources we need for our security and economy are not by any means under our control. Access to strategic materials must be a major consideration in our foreign and security strategy and policy. Our international relationships and alliances need to have regard to that fact.
More than a decade ago, the Science and Technology Committee in another place produced a well-researched report which highlighted strategically important metals to the UK. It also emphasised the need for a stable supply of these metals, as well as nonmetals such as helium, as we move to a low-carbon economy. I believe that the Government would do well to revisit that report, because it has a lot in it that we still need to learn. The increasing global demand for strategic metals from the West, from China and from emerging economies will not just be a factor in their price; it will be a crucial factor in their availability. Future Governments will need to be alive to the need for sufficient supplies and stockpiling is an expensive option.
We must also consider the effects of conflict and war on access to these materials. After all, we are living through a war which has had a profound effect on access to grain. In the United States, the Dodd-Frank Act requires companies to produce a detailed report on conflict materials that they use; perhaps the Government should introduce similar legislation here.
As part of our national security strategy, we are also going to have to pay more attention to the recycling of strategic materials. Everyone in this Chamber has got a phone—heaven knows, we hear them go off often enough—and in these phones, as your Lordships may know, rare earth metals are used to produce the colours on our screens. Indium tin oxide is used in the transparent film to enable us to use them as touchscreens —and these are things that we are going to need in the future.
Last year, the House voted to set up ARIA, which is a symbol of our science ambition, and we are strengthening the UK Space Agency. But, like it or not, we need to hugely expand our R&D capacity and the current target of 2.4% is not enough. Our science budget will prove as important a basis of our future national security as money spent on military hardware. Arguments that people might have thought were overtaken by a globalised world in the last 30 years or more now need to be completely rethought and reframed. Understanding and adapting to the new landscape must be a critical role for the Executive and the legislature in this new Session, bearing in mind that the balance is, I hope, tilted towards the legislature.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a short expedition into the Commonwealth, not much mentioned in these debates, and in particular into three of its late joiners, all of them sub-Saharan nations. That connects me with the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, because a lot of those important minerals are to be found in sub-Saharan Africa.
I sometimes wonder how serious the Government’s interest in sub-Saharan Africa is. When DfID was brought back under the Foreign Office, I thought that we might hear some quite exciting new ideas about how to proceed, but I fear that the recent announcement, which is pretty opaque, does not make the blood run. As an old employee of CDC, I much regret the throwing of an excellent brand name into the wastepaper basket for an anonymous kind of name, which misrepresents what CDC has always done. It invested not in British interests but primarily in the interests of the country where it was working, and it always tried to make that investment work in such a way that it became locally owned as soon as possible.
In sub-Saharan Africa, on the three late entrants that I would like to talk about briefly—Rwanda, Cameroon and Mozambique—the challenges are very complicated. If there was ever a place looking for some form of levelling up, it must be those three countries. They are all poor, they all need economic development and, particularly Cameroon and Mozambique, they have a lot of violence going on within their borders. They all need institutions that can deal with the problems that arise in a nation state, and none of them has reached a level of income and public expenditure to enable it to create those institutions.
Rwanda has a population of 13 million, with a tangled German and Belgian colonial background. It is living on subsistence agriculture, with a median age of 20 and a GDP about equal to that of Brighton and Hove. Cameroon became a member of the Commonwealth in 1995, also with a tangled German, French and English background. The French/English background has not worked; there is a stand-off between the culture and languages of France and England. There is a secessionist movement, which will not work, and there are all sorts of problems. However, like Rwanda, it is a member of the Commonwealth.
Mozambique also became a member in 1995. It has a Portuguese background, and 20% of the population speak Portuguese, which is the official language of Mozambique. However, Portuguese colonialism was very much centred on the coast, and the rest of Mozambique has 20 indigenous languages. The problems in the north, in Cabo Delgado, where there is an Islamic majority, are extremely severe.
My plea is to ask the Government whether they intend to have declared policies towards these three members of the Commonwealth which we can understand, or do they think that things are really too difficult and that the British public are not sufficiently interested for the Government to become interested themselves?
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the co-chair of the APPG for Egypt. I shall focus on two of the greatest threats to the world’s peace and security: Putin’s Russia and political Islam. Putin has hijacked Russia and her church. Political Islam, spearheaded by the Islamic State, has hijacked the noble religion of Islam. The link is that both of them reflect the politics of fascism: authoritarian rule with violence, military aggression against nation states, ethnic cleansing and even genocide, and ultranationalism. Both use the techniques of that poisonous creed.
I refer briefly to Putin only to suggest that he could share the fate of three of his most notorious predecessors as head of the Russian secret police. All three were feared, all of them were shot: Yagoda in March 1938, Yezhov in February 1940 and Beria in December 1953. They were Soviet communists, as was Putin. Now I can see that little man wearing a red armband with a black Z on a white circle. Ukrainian courage and world opinion will contain Putin. I have only one suggestion: NATO should make it clear that nuclear weapons, whether tactical or strategic, flourished by Putin are out of bounds. First use would bring a terminal response.
I turn to IS. After the setback in Syria and Iraq, IS is now making strides in Africa, as we heard from my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in chilling terms. Paradoxically, IS is battling the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban is basically a nationalist belief, mainly Pashtun. IS does not accept or recognise national boundaries; it wants a world caliphate. Perhaps there is an analogy with Stalin and Trotsky: socialism in one country versus world revolution.
Last year I suggested that one approach to the threat of political Islam is to recognise that the role of religious leaders is to guide but not to rule. I quoted Dr Shawki Allam, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, who had declared that terrorism was
“in complete violation of Islamic law and norms, and the perpetuators are no way representative of the Muslim people or the religion of Islam.”—[Official Report, 19/5/21; col. 638.]
Dr Allam is now the secretary-general of Fatwa Authorities Worldwide, a group of 136 grand muftis who collectively represent the world of Sunni Islam. Dr Allam is here this week visiting Britain at the invitation of the APPG run by my honourable friend Jonathan Lord, the Member for Woking. The Grand Mufti spoke at a meeting of Members of both Houses on Monday, when he warned us that terrorism and extremism are a scourge that is destroying the world. Yesterday, he met my noble friend the Minister who is going to answer this debate. Tomorrow, he is due to debate in the Oxford Union. He was due to visit Birmingham today, but that is a seat of power of the Muslim Brotherhood and a political front for Islamist action. I was appalled to learn that, on the insistence of the Egyptian embassy, this visit was cancelled as being too dangerous.
I end by saying that I really wonder whether the time has not come to have a grand mufti for Britain, who would be able to represent the decent and moderate—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am sorry, my Lords, but there is an advisory speaking time of five minutes and the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is well over.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I shall address my remarks to the issue of the development assistance programme. Earlier, my noble friend Lady Northover talked about taking the long view. Taking the long view is important, because then you can reach your objectives. I want to make the case for targeting resource at education and raising the official development budget allocation for education to 15%.
As we wait for the restoration of the 0.7% of GNI for official development assistance, we have to recognise that the budget is being squeezed even more than just the reduction to 0.5%, as our GNI shrinks in real terms. This will make setting priorities difficult. Globally, even before the pandemic, 258 million children received no schooling at all, and hundreds of millions more were in school but experiencing conditions that prevented their learning. Education is every child’s right. Education has the power to protect and transform lives, and it is the foundation for sustainable development.
Last year, as G7 president, the UK hosted the replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education and made improving access in low and middle-income countries a priority, but as we emerge from the global pandemic, this laudable priority is under threat because of the huge shortage of qualified teachers. Globally, there are too few qualified teachers, and this is one of the greatest barriers to education in poor countries. UNESCO estimates that 69 million new qualified teachers must be recruited by 2030 to enable all children to have a decent education. In countries such as Djibouti, Malawi, Namibia, Senegal, South Sudan, Togo and Zimbabwe, 95% or more of the national education budget is spent on teachers’ salaries—yet teacher pay is low, and often below the poverty line.
In Zimbabwe, for example, teachers’ salaries are about $335 per month—less than the amount needed to buy food and other items to support a family of five. One deeply concerned teacher from Zimbabwe said:
“teachers feel as if they have become beggars. Morale is at its lowest. … We go to work in tattered clothes, and we are living in squalid conditions.”
Recruiting more teachers at these pay levels is going to be a very difficult task indeed.
Some 38% of primary school teachers and 55% of secondary school teachers in sub–Saharan Africa are untrained, and many are teaching classes of 70 and more pupils. I have seen two classes of 70 sitting back to back, with a teacher facing them and then moving round to the other side of the room to continue teaching the other half of a class of well over 140 children. If you believe that education is the way out of poverty and the foundation for sustainable development, providing qualified teachers must be a top priority. We have to help build a better future, and that starts with education delivered by a qualified teacher.
I would be grateful if the Minister in replying could tell the House what assessment the Government have made of the global teacher shortage, so that the global targets they set in 2021 as president of the G7 will be met. One of these targets is to get 40 million more girls into education—and that alone would mean recruiting and training 1.8 million more teachers. Do the Government recognise that teachers are one of the greatest levers in delivering global education ambitions? If so, does the Minister agree that to help tackle the teacher shortage, there is a need for an overarching UK government policy on recruiting more teachers globally? Improving and providing decent education is the route out of poverty and the pathway to prosperity.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, my contribution to this debate on the Queen’s Speech is on foreign affairs and defence. I declare an interest as chair of Christian Aid. Why am I speaking about foreign affairs to begin with? Given Her Majesty’s Government’s policy paper, published on Monday, on their strategy and new approach to international development, which I welcome, I could not but comment on what is close to my heart.
The House of Commons International Development Select Committee published a report earlier this year on Pakistan which showed that:
“Between 2015 and 2019 Pakistan was the largest single recipient of direct UK government-to-government bilateral aid. However, since then, overall UK aid has been cut … and aid to Pakistan has been reduced dramatically. After experiencing the largest cut in UK aid of any single country, Pakistan fell to seventh in the table of UK recipients, with an annual budget of just less than £200 million.”
The committee’s report presses the Government to focus their spending in Pakistan on supporting
“marginalised groups, including women & girls”—
one of the priority areas of the new international development strategy—
“and religious minorities”,
and to
“prioritise delivering programmes with local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) … because aid programmes are more effective when they are ‘owned’ by the local population”.
This is the experience of Christian Aid.
On the broader foreign policy agenda, I ask whether the conflicts in Ukraine will see the Government revisit the integrated defence and security review that came out last year, which signalled a pivot to the Indo-Pacific? The absence in that strategy of any framework for defence and security co-operation with Europe now looks short-sighted given the actual developments in Ukraine.
On the wider defence agenda, I welcome the moves the Government are taking to reassure Baltic countries, but this begs the question of whether, long-term, the Government will be looking to station large numbers of troops on eastern fronts or whether they intend to have a token presence they can strengthen at short notice. This decision could have long-term implications for members of the Armed Forces and their families.
Another thorny reality which Her Majesty’s Government must take seriously is the UK campaign Stop Killer Robots, which is a technology-concerned working group. The life cycle of lethal autonomous weapon systems raises outstanding technological concerns. Nearly 70 nations have joined a call for a combination of both prohibition and regulation in the form of a legally binding instrument. Will Her Majesty’s Government engage in working towards the establishment of a legally binding international treaty which could ensure that meaningful human control is retained over the use of such systems and prohibit the development, production, transfer and use of lethal autonomous weapon systems—LAWS—or, as they are also called, “killer robots”? The call for regulation is meant to safeguard the use of scientific knowledge, rather than limit scientific advancement in this area. The Government, in a 2020 paper, UK Commentary on the Operationalisation of the Laws Guiding Principles, reiterated their earlier 2018 submission in which the life cycle of lethal weapon systems was set out, concluding that human control is paramount.
Lethal autonomous weapons threaten to become the third revolution in warfare. Once developed, they will permit armed conflicts to be fought at a scale greater than ever and, at times, faster than humans can comprehend. These can be weapons of terror, weapons that despots and terrorists can use against innocent populations, and weapons hacked to be harnessed in undesirable ways. Once this Pandora’s box is opened, it will be hard to close.
I found the article by Yusef of the Stop Killer Robots Coalition illuminatingly disturbing. Will the UK Government please engage with that coalition and, for all our sakes, and for the children yet unborn, come to Parliament and restore what the locusts have devoured from the international aid budget? To err is human, to forgive divine.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and his extraordinary combination of passion and knowledge.
I have so far not raised the subject of the European Union in this place. You know how it is: we get typecast, do we not, and pigeonholed? You make 12 speeches on something else and then the one time you mention the B word, everyone says, “Oh, he’s on his hobby-horse; he only ever talks about one thing.” This is my 81st spoken contribution and I have not yet mentioned the B word. I say “the B word”—I think that I have spoken about broadcasting, Botox and the BBC, but I am, for the first time this evening, going to mention Brexit, in the context of how the debate was introduced by my noble friend Lord Grimstone and then picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and others; that context being the necessity of unity in the face of international aggression.
I agree very much that we need a united West at the moment, but perhaps not in the way that several dozen other noble Lords who have raised this point intend. It is certainly the case that we need a united front. The West has shown itself to be very geographically limited. The Governments who have imposed any kind of sanctions on Putin’s regime represent perhaps 20%, if that, of the world’s population. A lot of countries that you would have thought would have self-identified as democracies and taken that seriously—India, Israel, Indonesia—have tended rather to sit this out.
However, I have to say that, when we come to the issue that is supposedly dividing the West—the response to unilateral action over the Northern Ireland protocol—I detect a real asymmetry and imbalance in how British Ministers speak and how their counterparts in the European Union address the issue. Wherever you stand on the protocol—and I accept that there are lots of noble Lords on all sides who think pacta sunt servanda, we have given our word and all the rest of it—one thing on which I hope we can all agree is that the proposed reforms are not animated by bellicosity. They are not intended to be harmful. Even the European Union and all the parties in Northern Ireland acknowledge that there are genuine grievances that need remedying. I do not think that anyone is denying that. Therefore, whether it is the proposal for the green channel or the proposal for local democratic control over taxation, it is plainly intended to remedy an identified harm rather than to do harm to a neighbour.
The same is not true of the rhetoric that we get in the other direction. European Union officials speak quite openly about punitive measures and retaliation. It is not just their words; if we look at other aspects of the UK-EU relationship that have been held up because they have been tied to this issue, we see time and again that the European Union is prepared to act in a way that is costly to all sides and that inflicts damage on itself, because the essential spirit is vindictive.
We discussed at great length the other day the UK’s exclusion from the Horizon programme; I am not particularly fussed one way or another about the Horizon programme, but nobody could argue that this is just the EU advancing its own interests. It was deliberately intended, and sold internally, as being about hurting Britain. It was the same with the energy trading schemes in the North Sea, which were supposed to have been ratified last month. Their non-ratification retards the development of renewables and increases our dependence on Russian hydrocarbons. It was the same for equivalence in financial services and so on. These are all examples of where all sides are being damaged to make a point.
I put it to noble Lords that the real threat to western unity is not a proportionate attempt to remedy these grievances in Northern Ireland in a way that is expressly designed not to do any harm to our neighbour and would ensure no more leakage than now. Even if we take seriously the idea that a pork pie crossing into County Donegal would wreck the single market, there is nothing in the Government’s proposals that would make that a more likely scenario than it is today. The real threat is rather this lamentable tendency in Brussels still to think of the United Kingdom as a renegade province that needs to be brought to heel rather than as a strategic ally.
I am very proud of this country’s contribution to the defence of Ukraine. We started earlier and have been at it longer than others. We did so, let us remember, not because we were directly threatened—there was no scenario in which Russian troops were about to cross into Kent—but because, as in 1914 and 1939, we wanted to come to the aid of a friendly country because we believe in European freedom and security. We are good Europeans. I wonder whether the same is true of the European Commission.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, there are clear lessons to learn from the Covid pandemic and the brutal war against Ukraine. While globalisation has brought many benefits, not least to this country, we have learned how all of us have become dependent on unreliable providers of essential products. The terrible war has further underlined the new reality threatening economic and political stability, for which all of us are paying a price.
Last year I spoke in praise of the assistance we have quietly given to Ukraine through Operation Orbital over the last six years. The British Army has trained Ukrainian forces, our Royal Navy vessels have regularly visited Black Sea ports, and we have persuaded NATO that its south-eastern quadrant was potentially as vulnerable as the Baltic states. Having been chairman of the British Ukrainian Society for many years, and as a recipient of a huge number of messages from Ukraine, I can confirm that the intense feeling of gratitude towards us is truly and deeply felt.
Global supplies of many key crops, including wheat and seed oils, have been devastated by this assault on Ukraine, causing a collapse in exports to the Middle East and north Africa and resulting in food riots and even starvation in some directly affected countries. Lebanon, which is already fragile and to which I am the Prime Minister’s trade envoy, has been importing up to 64% of its wheat from Ukraine alone. The blockade by Russia in the Black Sea to prevent grain exports from Odessa remains a horrendous problem as Ukraine valiantly seeks to find new export and safe routes elsewhere. Russians are flouting the freedom of the seas and maritime law, which are so fundamental to us as a maritime power. The interlocking supply chain crisis relating to Covid-19 and now food and energy distribution has a common cause: the actions of authoritarian regimes, in consequence disrupting international supply chains on which we, like so many others, have come to depend.
But we must now look to the future. The horrors of the war against Ukraine have prompted renewed unity among the democratic powers. NATO, once again a demonstrably more powerful defence alliance, has seen its purpose revitalised. It is perfectly true that, in the next 10 years, 90% of world economic growth will likely happen in the Indo-Pacific region, but the Ukraine crisis has shown that collective European values have reasserted themselves. I hope that we can use this opportunity to recalibrate our European relationships on the basis of mutual respect. Britain is clearly the premier European military power, as acknowledged by our European neighbours, and we have shown no lack of willingness to deploy our military and intelligence resources. In assisting Ukraine and pushing back Russian aggression, Britain has received praise across the entire Euro-Atlantic area.
The engagement of the United States has been welcome and profound, but we must inevitably face the dependence of the continent of Europe on that country’s wholly disproportionate financial and military contribution to our security and way of life. This country and others like it across the world need to be ready to pay the financial cost of freedom by investing more in our Armed Forces and diplomatic reach. The remorseless underfunding of our diplomatic service is wholly misplaced. As one very supportive ambassador recently said to me while in London, this seems beyond perplexing for the concept of global Britain. Last year’s integrated review is not just about tilting towards the Indo-Pacific and building new multilateral structures to uphold an international order. It is about strengthening the democracies of the Euro-Atlantic and ensuring they remain relevant and engaged in a period of major geopolitical change.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, at this stage of the debate, I begin to feel a bit sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who has to reply to all these points. I have often said that, in these debates, there will be at least a couple of former Foreign Secretaries attacking you and a rather larger number of Members who always thought they should have been Foreign Secretary. The same has been true tonight.
I will try to confine myself to broad points—first, climate change. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has already spelled out the need for an acceleration in the machinery to deliver what was agreed in Glasgow. The Glasgow agreement was a qualified success, but a success for British diplomacy and for the right honourable Alok Sharma. It now needs to be turned into reality. It hardly features in the gracious Speech or the legislative programme.
Instead, we have a situation where, faced with blackmail from one autocratic regime, in the supply of gas and oil, we have taken the option to go to another autocratic regime that has been bombing and devastating its neighbour for seven years—Saudi Arabia—to try to restore that oil and gas. We ought to take this opportunity to move the world and the economics of energy away from fossil fuels. That requires international effort. I hope that we carry forward the progress we made in Glasgow over the next period.
Secondly and more generally, we will need to review the structure of international organisations over the coming years. It is clear, for example, that the United Nations cannot act when a member of its Security Council is a perpetrator of an offence to international order. It is also true that the World Trade Organization does not guarantee effective trade in a way that increases the diversity and equality of income among the countries of the world and, in some cases, allows a restriction of access to key materials, such as those just referred to by my noble friend Lord Stansgate. That can inhibit us from attaining our objectives on climate change and free trade.
Thirdly, on the humanitarian and human rights front, we will need to establish better international mechanisms, arising from Ukraine, for the prosecution of perpetrators, including those in the Russian Government, responsible for the undoubted war crimes taking place in Ukraine, against Ukrainian civilians, with rape being used as a weapon of war and the torture and killings of prisoners. The present structure and process to bring those people to justice does not exist.
While Ukraine and the Ukrainian people are our immediate concern, we need to think ahead. At some point, this conflict will end. It may end unsatisfactorily for the people of Ukraine, but it will end and we believe it will end with, effectively, the defeat of Russia. We will then need a major international project for the reconstruction of Ukraine—the equivalent of a Marshall plan. Once Ukraine attains some sort of victory and peace, the reality is that not only we will need to rebuild that country’s economy and society, there will be a demoralised and impoverished Russia, as a result partly of sanctions and partly of war. Hence it will be an unpredictable Russia, in which some elements of the country will still have access to nuclear and chemical weapons, and to its cyber capability.
This may seem strange to say at this point, but we will need politicians and statesmen who understand Russia, which includes understanding Russian exceptionalism, Russian paranoia about encirclement and Russian defensiveness. These are features not simply of the Putin regime or of the Soviet inheritance; they are deep-wired and, in some cases, understandable. They have to be appreciated by those who deal with Russia, whatever it looks like once this crisis is over. I believe this country can take a lead on that, but it is important that we act together with others and in particular with our colleagues and allies in Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with him on the Brexit situation. That has made it more difficult but, unless Britain acts with the EU on these issues, we will not again succeed in bringing peace to Europe.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords—[Interruption.] Oh, I am sorry. It is not my turn.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
Thank you. My Lords, for the next five minutes, I want to move the focus from eastern Europe—and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard —to the eastern Mediterranean and the divided island of Cyprus. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the APPG for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
The island of Cyprus has been divided for over half a century. In that time, there have been many attempts at reunification, all of which have failed. These failures have prolonged the isolation and impoverishment of the north. Through no fault of their own, the people of northern Cyprus have suffered and continue to suffer exclusion from the international community and embargoes on their trade.
Despite this record of failure, and after another unsuccessful round of talks in Geneva 13 months ago, the UN Secretary-General said:
“I do not give up. My agenda is strictly to fight for the security and wellbeing of the Cypriots—of the Greek-Cypriots and the Turkish-Cypriots—that deserve to live in peace and prosperity”.
However, by the end of last year, the Secretary-General was markedly more pessimistic. He reported that
“confidence in the possibility of securing a negotiated settlement continued to fall on the island from an already low level. Public debate focused on the divergent positions of the sides regarding the basis of the talks”.
Calling the positions “divergent” is putting it mildly. The Greek Cypriots propose variations on the bizonal, bicommunal federation model. The Turkish Cypriots now reject this model entirely and propose a two-state solution. Indeed, the Turkish-Cypriot north has a President, Ersin Tatar, who was elected on exactly that platform.
The two sides appear to be further apart than ever. The south remains prosperous, while the north becomes poorer, under embargo and isolated. In the south, GDP per head is around $30,000. In the north, it is around $15,000. The north’s economy depends largely on subventions from Turkey. The recent steep decline in the value of the Turkish lira has had a disastrous effect on the economy in the north. Inflation in Turkey now stands at 70%, with the prospect of further damaging falls in the value of the lira and the value of the subventions to northern Cyprus.
The Secretary-General ends his most recent report by calling on the Cyprus
“guarantor powers to do their utmost to support efforts to ultimately bring the Cyprus issue to a settlement and bring peace and prosperity to all Cypriots.”
We are one of those guarantor powers, of course, and we have a long and honourable record of working for a settlement. From September, we will also have a new high commissioner, Mr Irfan Siddiq. I wish Mr Siddiq well and look forward to meeting him in the near future. I urge him and the Government to increase efforts to bring the two sides together and work on facilitating confidence-building measures. We know that the two sides can work together effectively when there is a common interest; this was demonstrated clearly during the pandemic.
In the meantime, we could help the economically vital tourism from the UK to the north by addressing a problem at Ercan Airport. We could remove the requirement that all passengers travelling from the UK to Ercan in northern Cyprus must deplane with all their baggage to undergo security checks in Turkey. The UK imposed that restriction; we could lift it ourselves if we chose. I know from conversations with President Tatar that his Administration would comply with any conditions that HMG might have. This would not solve the Cyprus problem, of course, but it would bring some economic relief to the north and demonstrate our willingness to provide practical help. I commend it to the Minister and hand over to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for rudely jumping the gun and attempting to speak in front of him. The gracious Speech confirmed that the Government will continue to support Ukraine and play a leading role in defending democracy and freedom across the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, may not have noticed, but without Brexit we would not have been able to move so quickly to provide military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. I believe that our early action forced the EU to follow suit and several member states have now reassessed their security and defence policies. I agree with noble Lords who advocate increased defence spending, which is of course necessary if the Government are to work closely with international partners to maintain a united NATO and address the most pressing global security challenges.
Among our most important international partners is Japan, whose Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida, visited London earlier this month and, together with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, signed a reciprocal access agreement, a defence co-operation pact which will enable faster deployment of troops and greater engagement in joint training and operations. This is seen by some as a second Anglo-Japanese alliance, returning the countries’ defence relationship to what it had been during the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902 to 1923.
Our relationship with Japan in other fields such as trade and cultural exchange also continues to develop apace. As a former long-term resident of Japan and a former chairman of the Japan Society, I am happy that it is now clear that the hiatus in our good relationship, which lasted for several years in the mid-20th century, is now well behind us and we have resumed the collaborative and close relationship between two ancient island constitutional monarchies. We have recently entered into a new free trade agreement and our accession negotiations to join the CPTPP, in which Japan is the largest economy, are advanced.
The Japanese remember better than we do that this year is also the 150th anniversary of the visit to Britain by the Iwakura Mission, which spent 122 days in this country studying how we arranged our political, economic and education structures. The Japanese Government were well pleased with the work of the mission and, the same year, 1872, granted us a perpetual lease on an extensive estate just across the moat from the Imperial Palace in central Tokyo as a diplomatic mission. It is, in terms of both style and scale, by far the most impressive embassy in Tokyo of any country, including the United States. It is without doubt an act of unbelievable short-sighted folly for the FCDO now to seek to sell for development around three acres of the seven acres that we own today. In terms of the value and support our diplomatic presence gives and can continue to give to every British business operating in Japan, the net proceeds of perhaps as much as £700 million are a drop in the ocean. In the words of one very senior Japanese associate of mine,
“the premises and the buildings are the symbol of the historic bilateral relations; they are the source of the special and unique status that the British Embassy and the British Government have in the Japanese society.”
We have a fantastic asset which defines the positive perception of this country in the minds of the Japanese people. If we proceed with the plan, we will inflict permanent damage on our standing in Japan. If a large apartment building is built, sandwiched between our shrunken embassy estate and the public park which once also formed a part of it, it will be seen as a permanent reminder of our opportunistic sale of what had been a gift and a substantial net disinvestment of our assets in Japan. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will stand up to the Chancellor and stop the sale. The Treasury has supported business to the tune of some £400 billion during the pandemic but grants the Foreign Office no money at all to invest in its built estate. The proposed sale is completely inconsistent with the Government’s global Britain strategy and would make my noble friend Lord Grimstone’s words in his introductory speech about “deepening our alliances” around the world and
“stepping up on the international stage”
seem hollow indeed to the ears of our Japanese friends.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, despite the Cypriot and Japanese interlude, Ukraine has dominated this debate, and it will dominate the United Kingdom’s foreign policy for the period addressed in the gracious Speech.
The three months since Russia’s unprovoked invasion have been extraordinary. How and when the war will end is not yet clear, but some things are. Measured by its original objectives, Russia has already lost. Ukraine will never be a submissive and compliant province of Russia, and Ukrainians will never be willing or docile subjects of Moscow. Measured by any standards, Russia is losing.
Earlier today, with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, I saw the British ambassador to Ukraine. She reported that Ukraine’s performance to date is a virtuous circle, with success inspiring Ukrainians to strive for further success. She was confident that, with external help, the loss of Mariupol would not interrupt this positive cycle. I hope that, when replying later, the Minister will join me in congratulating Melinda Simmons and her team for their outstanding work in Kyiv.
Putin’s problems now also encompass Russia’s traditional international partners. On Monday this week, he entertained the five other heads of state and government of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. They were celebrating its 30th anniversary, but the atmosphere was not festive: only Belarus supported the war. Despite that, Secretary-General Stanislav Zas optimistically predicted that other states would soon join the CSTO. Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, on the other hand, can more plausibly be confident about the future, having received this morning the formal applications of Finland and Sweden to join NATO.
Putin is reacting to reverses on the battlefield and the international stage by lashing out. Despite the fact that Russia joined other nuclear weapon states as recently as January this year in reaffirming that a nuclear war could never be won and should never be started, he muses in public about using nuclear weapons. The UK must be part of a concerted effort to get the whole international community, including China, India and others sitting on the diplomatic fence, to remind Moscow of the absolute unacceptability of first use of nuclear weapons.
For the rest, the UK should continue and ramp up existing policies but also prepare for the future, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. UK-supplied weapons helped Ukraine at the beginning; ramped up supply can help it win. UK sanctions are sweeping but not yet comprehensive. We must move from merely freezing assets of the sanctioned to seizing assets for redistribution to the Russian people, as almost floated by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley.
We should also begin preparing now for reconstruction, work that can nestle within the international development strategy announced two days ago. Ukraine faced fundamental challenges even before 24 February. Businesspeople in your Lordships’ House have long classified Ukraine as among the most corrupt countries in Europe. How reconstruction aid is disbursed, as well as the projects to be supported, needs attention.
I finish with two other points about the new strategy. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, I note that the Commonwealth has hardly featured in today’s debate, as it hardly features in the strategy, where it appears briefly as a potential partner but not really as a priority aid recipient. Within Africa and the Indo-Pacific, I hope the Government will prioritise eligible Commonwealth countries. Secondly, a strategy needs resources to match its ambition. Her Majesty’s Government’s ambition will require at least 0.7% of GNI, so I urge the Government to speed up their timetable and restore the 0.7% spend now.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his constructive speech. I shall not follow him down those tracks, because I have something else to mention. The Government’s legislative plans announced last week did not contain proposals to increase spending on defence; nor have Ministers given any indication that they are averse to the proposed reduction by 9,000 in the target level for our Armed Forces to a total of just 73,000 full-time troops by 2025. Of course, our forces have to be equipped with the latest technologically advanced equipment and be able to respond swiftly when required, but, at a time when the United Kingdom, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, is taking such a prominent global role in helping Ukraine withstand totally unjustified aggression by Vladimir Putin, we have to question why we are continuing to engage in scaling back our armed services to levels not seen for 200 years. If I remember correctly, my noble friend Lady Davidson mentioned this, as did the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead.
At the same time as the troop cutbacks, the number of tanks and armoured fighting vehicles is being reduced. Hercules transport planes are being retired and there is to be a further scaling back of the Navy and the Royal Air Force. Even before Ukraine was attacked, our senior military leaders and those at Westminster who take a special interest in these matters warned that more of the UK’s finances need to be allocated to future defence spending and that the planned cutbacks in troop numbers are too severe. “Mass still matters”, said the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards, a former Chief of the Defence Staff. At the beginning of this year, referring to the 2021 integrated defence and security review, Tobias Elwood MP, who chairs the Defence Committee in the other place, claimed that the necessary funding had not been committed
“to ensure that our defence powers are suitably upgraded for the looming threats we face.”
The percentage for defence has been falling over the decades. The United Kingdom has remained within the 2% of GPD NATO spending pledge, unlike some other European nations.
Returning to troop numbers, this month General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, who is soon to step down after four years as Chief of the General Staff, told Soldier Magazine—my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton mentioned this—
“I am not comfortable with an army of just 73,000. It’s too small.”
He said the plan to limit the number to that total had come as “quite a surprise”. Further concern over the direction of government policy was expressed in the recently published report of the Back-Bench 1922 Defence Committee, set up by the Prime Minister in February, which stressed that the plan to cut Army numbers was based on the assumption of peace, not war, and must be halted immediately.
There is a famous quotation often attributed to the economist John Maynard Keynes, although there are other possible authors, including Winston Churchill, which states, “When the facts change, I change my mind.” That seems very appropriate in the circumstances which the Government now face over defence. The Prime Minister recently signed security pacts with Finland and Sweden to offer assistance should they be attacked before they can come under the defence shield of NATO. Meanwhile, that 73 year-old organisation has been recalled to active life by Putin’s appalling actions. I recall that in 2019 President Macron said we were experiencing the “brain death” of NATO. Well, all I can say is that NATO has certainly woken up. Its members, including the United Kingdom, are being called to give renewed service to reinforce the security of its eastern European flank, along with the territories of the Baltic states.
The facts have indeed changed dramatically in so many ways, and in these new and dangerous circumstances our armed services should not be expected to do more and more with less and less. I hope Her Majesty’s Government will consider a reappraisal of spending on defence and at least some aspects of future strategy. I hope that Ministers will be able to adjust their minds, where necessary, to help the United Kingdom, alongside its allies, to meet the formidable challenges that undoubtedly lie ahead.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I am glad that at long last the Government have recognised that the protocol is unworkable, but I remain very unclear on what exactly they are going to do about it. It has caused serious problems with the flow of trade in the UK, with the Northern Ireland economy losing some £1 billion to date.
The central constitutional difficulty with the protocol is that it subjects Northern Ireland to laws made by a polity of which it is not part and in which it has no representation at all. Noble Lords will be familiar with the great icon of British constitutional history John Hampden, the Member of Parliament for Buckinghamshire, who famously refused to pay the tax that Charles I had imposed without the approval of Parliament—ship money. Of course, four years later Charles sought to arrest Hampden and four other MPs in another place—an act that ultimately led to the greatest period of political tumult ever witnessed on these islands, but which established as sacrosanct the principle that we are a constitutional monarchy in which Parliament, the representative body of the nation, has the final authority when it comes to making law.
The difficulty with the protocol is that it commits an offence that is like that of Charles, because it gives the responsibility for making laws for part of the UK in some 300 areas to a body in which neither Parliament nor the people of the UK are represented. The difficulty presented by the protocol goes further, though; rather than involving the UK Executive making the legislation for us without Parliament, like Charles, this legislation is actually made by another polity entirely.
We are left with a sub-committee of the European Affairs Committee on the protocol asking whether Northern Ireland could not be given some kind of compensating voice in the EU. It kindly involved us in consultation exercises on its proposed legislation. If, however, it is suggested that this solution is acceptable, it must be acceptable in general, and we must be able to dispense with Parliament and govern the United Kingdom through government departments and consultation exercises. To submit to such an arrangement would be to agree to the political disinheritance of the United Kingdom and would be utterly unthinkable. Ironically, that arrangement is even contrary to the terms of Article 2 of the protocol, which states:
“The United Kingdom shall ensure that no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity, as set out in that part of the 1998 Agreement entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity results from its withdrawal from the Union”.
The relevant part of the Good Friday agreement meanwhile states:
“The parties affirm their commitment to the mutual respect, the civil rights and the religious liberties of everyone in the community.”
Thus, any proposals that undermine the civil rights of people in Northern Ireland, including their hard-won right to vote, are contrary to the Good Friday agreement. The fight for adult male and female suffrage in Northern Ireland was a long, hard battle for our civil rights. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government’s proposed legislation will, at a minimum, ensure that the civil rights of the people of Northern Ireland are restored such that they are as well represented in making the laws that apply to them as people living in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Some may ask why, given its affront to democracy, Sinn Féin and the SDLP are so enthusiastic about the protocol. It is because it helps achieve their goal of breaking up the United Kingdom economy between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and creating an all-Ireland economy, which they realise would greatly assist them in their political cause: the formal break-up of the United Kingdom and the creation of a united Ireland. Moreover, many of them, quite properly under the terms of the Good Friday agreement, are citizens of the Irish Republic, and in that sense are not without representation in the EU.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I have been actively involved in the defence of the realm since the Falklands War. When I re-read the speech that I made following Her Majesty’s gracious Speech in 2014, I also re-read a research work that I commissioned from King’s College London, which categorically demonstrated the economic benefit of military capital and research spend being made in the United Kingdom.
I very much appreciate my tireless noble friend Lord Ahmad, on whom the Government are putting huge emphasis to deliver on their principles. I reiterate that such moneys spent at home unquestionably create major benefits for the domestic sector of our economy and enhance our way of life. Having said that, unfortunately, large sums of money are still wasted on the wrong capital projects, as mentioned by many others before me. The time that it takes from concept to delivery within price is, in many cases, totally unacceptable.
Our present chief of staff is determined to achieve transformation and innovation in these areas. The unprovoked attacks by Russia on Ukraine have clearly demonstrated major mistakes by its military leadership, particularly in logistics and a lack of trained soldiers proud to serve their country. Russia and China’s build capability is, to a great extent, due to their being dictatorships and is much faster than that of the major democracies. The delivery capability of the Russian submarine programme, particularly its present one, is a major strength. Our latest submarine programme is crucial and needs all involved, particularly those companies in the private sector, to greatly increase the drumbeat for delivery with a major emphasis on value for money. The drumbeat of increased flows of money from the Treasury is of fundamental importance.
My view, mentioned by many here and in the other place, is that there must be a sizeable increase in the spend. It should be at least 3.5% because we must take into account that this so-called 2% is not a net percentage. It is probably not even 1.7% in real terms. Also, the major spend which we are now going into in a big way will not be completed by 2040. Can anybody truly believe that inflation will remain static for that whole period?
The United States is our closest and most trusted ally and we enjoy an excellent relationship with its military leadership. The Russian war on Ukraine has given us all a great deal to think about and has created extraordinary problems worldwide, but although NATO is dominated by the United States, which also picks up most of the cost, we have not seen the way we work together—and how NATO works together—since the Cold War.
On foreign affairs, I have often said that in following an agreed long-term foreign policy post Brexit, it is of national importance that we have the finest foreign service. Through the centuries, its role has been critical in having ambassadors and staff with persuasive abilities and a key collective intelligence. We have today many capable young ambassadors who are more than ready to rebuild this vital service. The major cuts in their budgets are frankly dangerous. Recently, several Peers have mentioned a deep concern about the possible selling of many of our splendid embassies. My noble friend Lord Trenchard gave a very good example. I totally agree; this would surely be a very short-sighted and bad message to the rest of the world.
Finally, to truly achieve the long-term security of the United Kingdom, it is vital that we have an excellent economy, thereby achieving a very strong balance sheet. It is well worth remembering that the Soviet Union collapsed by going broke. It was like piercing a balloon without a whimper. I cannot finish without stating—many others would obviously feel exactly the same—that some of our finest young men and women serve in our armed services and are prepared to put their lives on the line. In particular, they have a great pride and ethos in serving this country. I hope my noble friend the Minister shares these views.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, I find myself in profound disagreement with the Government’s war strategy in Ukraine and, in fact, with almost everything that has been said about Ukraine in this debate. I will try to explain why.
British policy aims for a Russian military defeat, which it will help to bring about by economic sanctions and supplying Ukraine with the necessary means of war. Liz Truss said on 27 April:
“We will keep going further and faster to push Russia out of the whole of Ukraine”.
Simon Jenkins has commented:
“She is clearly revelling in her imagined proxy war on the Russian bear and no one in Whitehall appears able to restrain her.”
I wish her proxy war was only imagined but it is actually happening.
It is an open secret that both France and Germany regard our hawkishness as driving up the price of peace and thus making a ceasefire more elusive. So what is the price of peace? For those whose history lessons begin and end with the Munich agreement of 1938, it is obvious; the price of peace is shameful surrender to the limitless ambitions of an evil and possibly mad dictator. I take a different view. I believe that Putin’s war aims, unlike Hitler’s, are limited and therefore that the fashionable domino theory—that if you give way here, then one after another will fall—is wrong.
I want the war to end before the war aims of our Government are achieved, for two reasons. The first is because the prolongation of the war threatens economic catastrophe. One aspect of that, mass starvation, was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord King, earlier in the debate.
Secondly, there is the consequence of a military disaster. If it happened that Russian conventional forces were actually pushed to defeat, as the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary want, Russia might well counter with tactical nuclear weapons. These have never been deployed; they abolish the distinction between conventional and nuclear war and thus remove a crucial barrier to uncontrolled escalation. To avoid these huge risks, the military position on the ground has to be such—I know this is an uncomfortable thing to say—that both sides can claim some military success. That means that our Government should take a very hard and accurate look at the scale and type of military help we give to Ukraine.
The peace terms discussed in Ankara in late March called for Ukraine’s neutrality, backed by security guarantees and a timeline to address issues such as the status of Donbass and Crimea. The Ukrainians withdrew from them after reports of the massacre at Bucha surfaced on 1 April. This was a horrible war crime, but it does not follow that because a country’s war methods are brutal its ambitions are genocidal or limitless.
Our Government should be urging a resumption of the Ankara process. I believe that a negotiated peace would be possible along lines which safeguard the independence of Ukraine and satisfy some Russian demands. There are three elements. The first is Ukraine’s neutrality for 20 years in return for international, including Russian, guarantees of Ukraine’s territorial borders before the Russian invasion of 24 February. That is, Russia would need to withdraw its troops from the territories that it has conquered after 24 February. Second is UN-supervised elections to determine the future of Donetsk and Luhansk. Third is acceptance of the transfer of Crimea to Russia in return for compensation. No conceivable independent Russian Government will voluntarily give up Ukraine, but Russia must be made to pay for this.
To prepare the ground for this, our Government need to drop talk of bringing the Putin regime to trial as war criminals, and should promise to de-escalate economic sanctions by stages as the peace accord is implemented. As Liddell Hart wisely said:
“Inflict the least possible permanent injury, for the enemy of to-day is … the ally of the future.”
Lord Owen (Ind SD)
My Lords, there is a very clear need throughout the allied world for unity, and I shall therefore deal very quickly with the Irish protocol. I believe that there is no way that this country will accept abandoning a treaty by an Act of law without first a serious attempt at arbitration. That is why we have the Vienna conventions, and it is in my view inconceivable that this legislation should be presented to this House without a very serious attempt at achieving international arbitration.
Now to the main issue, which is the Falklands—sorry, not the Falklands, but that is perhaps in a way rather an interesting lapse. It is rather nice in this country to come back to a situation where you can say that the British Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence have acted throughout intelligently and with courage, and we should be grateful for that. The issue of Ukraine has not been at all easy. We can all praise the President of Ukraine, who has shown remarkable courage and intense skill. I still believe that his biggest moment is yet to come, when he decides to open negotiations with the Russians for a peace settlement.
A peace settlement will have to end this but, frankly, it will not come from suggestions in this House or anywhere else, and nor should it. It should come from that country that was very nearly, on the second invasion, eradicated. It has the right to be supported by us, and we have quite correctly supported it within the limitations of NATO being a defensive alliance. We have not crossed that border, and we should not cross it. As for this loose talk about nuclear weapons and tactical use of weapons, of course that hangs and lurks as an ever-present danger. But that issue is primarily between two people: the President of the United States and the President of the Russian Federation. If President Putin feels that he wants to cross that threshold, he will endanger his whole country—but it is not an issue for NATO; nor, frankly, one that is helped by being discussed in this House either.
What we have to do now, as a number of noble Lords have made clear, is to strengthen our contribution. That means strengthening our contribution in weaponry, as we are entitled to do as a defensive organisation, and strengthening our economic sanctions, which are all the time being reduced. The good things that have come out of this dreadful war are few and far between. However, one fact is that we have seen the strength of NATO and the wisdom of Truman when he insisted that the boys could not come home in 1945 as he had promised them; in 1946 they were to stay.
We have heard a lot of trash and nonsense talked about European Union defence. A defence organisation has to have an inbuilt authority—a command structure. We have in NATO a proven command structure. We have the capacity to use the strength of the greatest military power still in the world, the United States, and to do so with discussion, democratic debate and, finally, military decision-making. I hope that President Macron has learned that it is not brain-dead and I hope that France stops trying to eradicate or even undermine NATO. That is the fundamental issue and we have seen it in this example.
For the future, it is extremely important that the Russian people believe that we are not antagonistic to them and that we do not want to humiliate them. They have a lot of economic and deep-seated military problems. Some of us—myself included—thought that their defence capacities and their armed forces were a lot stronger than they have proven to be. We must achieve a negotiated settlement that must come from Ukraine, but in the process of getting that settlement we must understand the Russian people and not permanently alienate them. That is a hard task but it is the task in front of us.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who neatly summed up how we have ahead of us complexities and difficult decisions, not only for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people but for the wider international community in coming to terms with the long-term implications of the horror that we have seen inflicted upon the people of Ukraine.
The German Chancellor, in his speech in February, used the significant term Zeitenwende—a watershed moment or sea change. As the Germans and others come to terms with how they are equipped to respond and reframe their foreign policy formed over many years, in this debate today we have been discussing how the UK is equipped to respond, not just to the immediate needs of Ukraine and others, but whether we are a trusted partner for many who will be addressing the very significant secondary and tertiary impacts around the world, especially with those countries least equipped to deal with humanitarian and food security issues themselves.
I am the 14th Liberal Democrat speaker in this debate, which was opened so ably by my noble friend Lady Smith on defence, followed by my noble friends Lord Lee and Lord Burnett, who also commented on elements of defence policy. That demonstrates that we on these Benches are a liberal movement open to the world, internationalist in spirit and belief, founded on principles of foreign policy outlined in terms that have been consistently held since Gladstone outlined them 140 years ago. Half of that period has been in the reign of this sovereign—a remarkable feat for Her Majesty, looking at the sweep of her reign.
However, in many respects we have heard in today’s debate that the future can move backwards, with war in Europe, a development strategy from the Government that harks back to the 1980s, trade barriers re-erected, global hunger and poverty increasing rather than decreasing, UK defence expenditure now back to 2010 levels, development spending back to 2013 levels, and Armed Forces levels back many generations.
In this gracious Speech, there was considerably less on international issues than in previous years and no mention at all of development, which is breathtaking given the consequences of war in Europe. The highlight of the trade element, as introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, was a Bill we are expecting on the Australia and New Zealand trade agreement, from which the Government’s own mid-estimate is that we are likely to yield an increase in UK GDP of between 0.00% and 0.08% over 15 years. However, I am glad to hear from the noble Lord that all parts of the UK will benefit from this bounty.
We have seen regression on free trade from this Government, with extra barriers, burdens and bureaucracy, as my noble friend Lord Palmer highlighted. For the first time in trading history, the UK has waged a trade war on itself. According to the latest ONS data, the UK is the only G7 country to contract in trade in 2021 and, as my noble friend Lord Taverne indicated on the decline in trade with our nearest neighbours, the latest OECD data shows a four-year average to this point of a 2.3% increase in total trade for the EU market, compared to an anaemic 0.7% average growth for the UK over the same period. We shall need to reconsider reconnecting and revisiting a UK-EU security and defence arrangement, energy and climate arrangements and reconnections on trade and practical movement of people—reconnecting, not cancelling, EU connections, as my noble friend Lady Ludford highlighted.
Many aspects of today’s debate have ranged broadly, as they should, from the climate emergency to the continuing impacts of the Covid pandemic, war in Europe and the energy supply crisis. Some are directly linked, some are causal and some were already sending the world on a problematic trajectory before the Ukraine war. Many of them in isolation would be too difficult for many countries to tackle themselves. They therefore require a commensurate shift in scale from the UK—a UK sea-change, in many respects.
Ukraine was the very solemn backcloth to this debate. My noble friend Lady Suttie highlighted very eloquently the challenges and pressures that exist, so I need not go into more detail as she summed it up perfectly. She highlighted a human and parliamentary element: she mentioned her contact Ostap, a clerk in the Verkhovna Rada. When I visited the Verkhovna Rada in 2014, when the buildings were still charred from the aggression of the Euromaidan, Ostap gave me a tour of the Parliament. He said—this is humbling for me—that a staff member of a democratic Parliament is called up to take arms to protect a democratic people and Parliament. That brings into context exactly what we are debating today.
However, the debate goes wider. What is the platform on which we in the UK respond to the much wider secondary impacts? On Monday, the development strategy was released—without Statement or debate—paragraph 30 of which says:
“Our approach to international development will be as a patient partner that champions openness, predictability and the rule of law.”
On the very next day, the Conservative chair of the Northern Ireland Select Committee asked the same Foreign Secretary who launched that strategy:
“Respect for the rule of law runs deep in our Tory veins, and I find it extraordinary that a Tory Government need to be reminded of that. Could my right hon. Friend assure me that support for, and honouring of, the rule of law is what she and the Government are committed to?”—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/22; col. 550.]
That jarring juxtaposition was highlighted by my noble friend Lord Campbell. If we are going to be responding to the increasing level of autocrats in the world, the growth in the number of fragile states—which receive only passing reference in the development strategy, and where we are now again seeing evidence of the growth in the recruitment of Daesh—and the growth in mercenary activity, then the UK needs to be a trusted partner.
On the long-term reconstruction of Ukraine, with the United States committing $40 billion, the EU over €30 billion, and the UK’s support—which we have supported on these Benches—we should not be blind, as has been raised in the debate, to the massive impact of food insecurity and the humanitarian consequences. The Biden Administration have made the correct calculation that, for many people who live in countries that are still considered non-aligned, who do not always believe our narrative in the UK and the West on the war in Ukraine and who are now seeing chronic food insecurity and risk, they are balancing the question as to whether they will blame Putin or the sanctions. The American Administration have therefore allocated £5 billion for immediate support for development relief and food support.
I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on the birth of his grandchild yesterday. Yesterday in the world 385,000 children were born; 39,000 of them will have been born in absolute hunger and poverty. My noble friend Lord German highlighted that those children will be denied educational opportunities. The UK response, instead of extra support, has been cutting support on development for those least able to support themselves. Not only that, in the development strategy we are undermining the very multilateral bodies we should be leading and helping shape. I ask the Minister: how much of the £1.3 billion committed to Ukraine—of which we are supportive—will be ODA and will we be lifting the 0.5% cap, or will that be offset by cuts elsewhere?
Lord Chidgey last year referenced the slashing bilateral aid cuts to African countries. He is greatly missed in debates in this House. UK aid statistics published last month show a 26% decrease in bilateral ODA. Now we are told this will be U-turned, but with no extra resources. The aid statistics published last week show the highest share of multilateral spend from the UK since 2014, at the same time as the Government are saying that this is the wrong thing to do. There is utter incoherence.
We all know that the Government have reneged on the legal commitment to 0.7% support. The foreword to the 2015 strategy—when Liberals were in government working with Conservatives and with consensus on development from the Labour Party—started with the second sentence on the first page reading:
“We firmly believe that spending 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) on international development … means our country walking taller in the world.”
However, respect for this legal requirement finds itself on the last page in the last paragraphs of this development strategy.
My noble friends Lady Northover, Lord Hussain, Lord Bruce and Lord Sharkey highlighted other conflict areas or protracted disputes; I will close with another. Winding his speech from these Benches in the first debate on the humble Address in Her Majesty’s reign in 1952 was Viscount Samuel. I will close with his words from Hansard.
“For five years I had the great honour, as representative of the British Crown and under the supervision of the League of Nations, to preside over the Administration which laid the foundations of the modern State in Palestine. That task was accomplished and all went well for some years afterwards, but of late there have been conflict and war. Although the war is over, there is still no peace, and grave suffering has been caused, particularly to the Arab refugees. I most earnestly hope that the United Nations now will take active steps to bring about a settlement. … I end by quoting famous words, in their literal sense as well as in the symbolic, mystical sense in which they are familiar in the Churches throughout the world: ‘Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.’”—[Official Report, 6/11/1952; cols. 103-04.]
We will see, even if war is over, that there may still be no peace and there may be grave suffering. We should strive to ensure that the future does not go further back but goes forward.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, in winding up, I start by saying how great it is that we can stand in this Chamber and debate these issues. Even if we fundamentally disagree, we can do that in the democracy in which we live. In talking about foreign policy, defence and development, there are many people who we seek to help who cannot do that. There have been one or two opinions expressed with which I fundamentally disagree, but noble Lords’ right to express them in this Chamber and for me to disagree is something that we should all recognise, as we remind ourselves that this country is an example to the rest of the world and seek to ensure that everyone has those same rights.
As I say often in these debates, it is significant that so many people with so much experience and knowledge can contribute. I start my remarks by reminding noble Lords of some of the principles on which we base our democracy and will focus on them. This Chamber is watched all over the world. It may be 10.01 pm, and those of us who have spent a few hours here may think that only a few people are watching, but these remarks are watched, read, distributed and pored over by countries across the world. As such, the remarks that are made in here, on all sorts of issues, resonate across the world in all sorts of ways. That huge responsibility lies on us and is something on which we should reflect.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will not be able to mention everyone and, if I start to, like the famous wedding I will miss somebody out; I apologise in advance, but there has been a huge number of contributions. I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Collins for the remarks in his excellent opening speech, which referenced the huge number of themes being considered. The noble Lord, Lord King, gave me his apologies, as he did the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, but he was right to start the debate by pointing out that we are at a cross-roads as a country, a continent and a world. There are hugely significant issues and which way we go and which side wins, if you like, is to be determined by the decisions we take.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that never has there been a time when we needed more a Queen’s Speech that was dynamic, visionary and inspiring. The warm words in certain sentences of the gracious Speech need to be turned into that vision and a sense of excitement and dynamism to inspire our own country, and those across the world, to bring about change. But in many of the areas outlined, as we have discussed over the previous few days, those visionary ideas are yet to be set out.
Let me spell it out, because, as I have said, this Chamber is heard across the country and the world—especially on Ukraine. Our country, Britain, has a proud history of combating evil in Europe and across the world. We will never be found wanting when it comes to meeting those needs, wherever they are. Every country, organisation and people should know this, and our country will stand shoulder to shoulder with those fighting for a fairer, more equal and more just world. We will always be on the side of democracy, as we are in Ukraine. Large numbers of noble Lords have pointed out the importance and significance of Ukraine and how it marks a turning point. It is a wake-up call for the continent and for the world. Battles that we thought had been won on democracy and human rights have been challenged by what has happened in Ukraine. We need to ensure that we are not cowed by what happens there and will stand up against that evil, so that we can show that example to the rest of the world. Many noble Lords have spoken about the importance of that.
In every area of trade, defence and foreign policy we are, as I have said, at a cross-roads and we should seize the moment. Too often as a country—I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that this needed to be addressed in the gracious Speech—we lack the confidence to say some of the things that I am saying at this Dispatch Box. Too often, we fear the consequences of that. We should be proud of our heritage, proud of where we stand as a country and proud to stand up for that and take it forward, not only on defence but on climate change, technology and all the various issues that many other noble Lords have raised. Those were important statements to be made in my opening remarks.
There is clearly a need for the defence strategy paper to be reviewed. That is not out of the ordinary; it is something that the Permanent Secretary said at our meeting: in the light of what has happened in Ukraine, there will be a need to review the defence review that took place. There is nothing wrong in that. I do not understand why the Government cannot say that, in the light of what has happened, we should review whether we got it right. The stupid thing to do is not to review it and to dogmatically refuse to review it in the light of what has happened. No doubt that is what the Permanent Secretary was saying.
The noble Baroness, Lady Davidson, talked about the Army. Who said that the Army was too small? It was not some left-wing socialist like me standing at the side; it was the head of the Army who said that it was too small—not some catastrophic idiot who does not know what they are talking about. The Government’s own outgoing head said that the Army is too small. What is the Government’s response to that? They cannot just dismiss these sorts of things; it is idiotic.
I hope that the noble Lord agrees with his boss, who contacted the Government to say that there needed to be an increase in defence spending. I think we would all like to hear whether the noble Lord agrees with his boss that there should be an increase in defence spending. I wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was still in her place. It was even worse for her boss, because he wrote to the Prime Minister on 11 March saying that there should be an increase in defence spending. The Prime Minister’s response to that was not to say to the Defence Secretary, “Quite right, it is a very serious matter that you have pointed out that we will not meet our 2% spending on NATO in 2025 unless there is an increase in defence spending”; instead, the Prime Minister told him to withdraw the letter. Noble Lord after noble Lord has said in this debate that there is a need to review defence spending. In his response, we could do with the Minister explaining whether he agrees that there is a need to review the level of defence spending.
I want to deal with one aspect of this, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fall. It is something that I have said in my own remarks previously, and it is extremely important: namely the need to explain to the British public, and persuade them, that there is a need for an increase in defence spending, rather than for us to say that it is all right to do that. It is really important and needs to be done for the defence of democracy and for the freedom of our country. That needs to be explained and argued for. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fall, quite rightly pointed out, the impact of much of this will be on the poorest people in the country. Who are the people who are facing the biggest squeeze on their living standards at this most difficult of times and a cost of living crisis? It is the poorest people in the country. Yet we are saying to them that, while we may be able to increase spending on benefits, and on this or on that, rather than do that, some of the public spending that may have gone to them will need to be spent on defence. That needs to be explained, argued for and debated with people. Too often—I have said this in remarks that I have made in other debates—we make statements about what should happen, rather than seeking to explain to the public why we think it should happen.
On trade, which has been raised by many noble Lords, I shall say just this—I am going to wind up in a couple of minutes. The issue for the Government and this country is not whether we want trade deals. Of course we want trade deals. The vision for the future is what sort of trade deals we have. I think the country is demanding, and the world is looking for a new chapter which seeks, a greater ethical position with respect to our trade deals. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about it: are we going to continue to trade with countries with, to say the least, questionable human rights policies, with no impact on climate change, where they repress minorities within their countries? Do we want our Government to continue to negotiate and make trade deals with any country in the world, irrespective of where it stands as a country on all these issues? That is the question. It is not whether we have trade deals; it is what sort of trade deals we want. That is the question as we move forward.
There are all the issues around soft power and the fact that the Government reduced aid from 0.7% to 0.5%—a disastrous policy. My noble friend Lady Blackstone talked about the importance of climate change and other noble Lords talked about the importance of linguists—the soft power importance of all of these things. It is not glib statements that people want, it is policies that underpin a fresh, new approach. The world is crying out for change, for a different sort of social order, and it is up to us as the UK to try to once again put ourselves at the forefront of that, to be the leader of that, to be the visionary for that in a reformed NATO, a reformed United Nations and a reformed Council of Europe. All those organisations need reform and change, and we should be the country that provides the dynamism and enthusiasm to do that.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, as ever, it is a great honour to address your Lordships’ House on behalf of the Government and to close this incredibly informed debate on foreign affairs, defence, trade and development. It has been a debate in which we have had varying contributions covering many countries and many issues. As my noble friend Lord Grimstone said in his opening remarks, these are very challenging and testing times—a point articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his remarks just now. A point made by all noble Lords is that it is important to stress again the importance of alliances, partnerships and working together and, yes, to renew that vision, the vision we share, for a fairer world based, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, reminded us, on the tenet of the strength of democracy, openness and freedom—the ability to disagree with each other, but doing so within and respecting the rule of law, whether that is domestically or internationally.
I start by conveying congratulations on behalf of these Benches to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on becoming a grandfather. When he was talking, I was reflecting. I still have a very young family myself. It is about opportunities. When you look towards your children, grandchildren and generations to come, sometimes you sit back and ask yourself: what is happening in the world? It is a point of reflection for all of us that, in our own way, we have a role to play. We want to be able to look at ourselves and say, on reflection, that we have played a part by trying to do our best in whatever roles we have.
The 67 speakers we have had in this debate, whatever perspective they have expressed, again demonstrated depth, quality, expertise and insight on the important issues we have discussed. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who spoke about the tone of engagement when it comes to international affairs, that I assure him that when not just our best diplomats but our Ministers engage, there is a softness to our tone, but a firmness in the message we wish to convey. I think that reflects the best of British diplomacy, and long may that continue.
The noble Lord, Lord McDonald, and my noble friend Lord Sterling talked of our diplomatic network. Our diplomats are the best of the best. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of addressing the heads of missions who are convened here in London. As the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, reminded us, it was also a great pleasure to sit down today with Melinda Simmons, our ambassador to Ukraine, to get her insights but also to recognise her courage, dedication and devotion—not just in representing the United Kingdom’s interests in Ukraine but in reflecting the best of our diplomats as they represent our interests and strengthen our relationships with countries across the world.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, talked about Brexit and declining influences. It will not surprise her that I will respond to that by saying simple things about our place in the world. I have seen directly over the last five years or so, as a Minister of State at the Foreign Office, as a joint Minister and now at the FCDO, the deep respect that the United Kingdom has among nations. That is reflected when you look at elections, for example within the ITU. Very relevant to the debate today was the election success we had within the ICC, with Joanna Korner being elected as a judge and Karim Khan as a prosecutor. I add that Karim actually stood against a number of European countries and won quite decisively. I think that reflects the deep regard and respect many countries have for the United Kingdom’s place in the world. Again, that is something we will continue to strengthen in our relationships.
As we look toward the world today, my noble friend Lord Grimstone spoke earlier about the warnings made back in 2021. But, to be completely honest, I was there for the wind-up in the debate on the Queen’s Speech, and none of us would have expected—and certainly did not hope—that those warnings would come true. Sadly and tragically, they have. Territorial expansionism and atrocities that we hoped had been consigned to the history books expose the very weaknesses of the post-war security architecture and require us to find new ways to stand up to aggression. Indeed, the whole world order, including that of the United Nations, has really been tested. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, reminded us that when you have a P5 member acting as the aggressor, it totally changes the whole dynamic of how we respond.
But in the darkness we have seen great courage, great resilience and a deep generosity, across the world and in our country, in response to the challenges we face, particularly those in Ukraine. We have witnessed the power of a drive for freedom, democracy and self-determination. That has inspired us and united us with our friends around the world. Issues of security and trade are important. While there are lessons for the West to learn together from Mr Putin’s war in Ukraine, I believe that our alliances with our partners in Europe, NATO and the G7 have been strengthened, with a new unity of purpose. It has been tested—absolutely—but we see it emerging in the world today in a very positive fashion in terms of ensuring that we act, and act together.
We must embrace the challenge of setting out a vision for international co-operation, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out in his closing remarks. As ever, the noble Lord talked in his customary style about coming together and working together. Irrespective of our differences, it is important that I reiterate once again—I know I speak for all my colleagues on the Government Front Benches—our deep appreciation for the insights that we gain through direct engagement with your Lordships’ House. That will certainly be reflected in what we do across the areas of foreign policy, defence, trade and development.
But equally, as my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Udny-Lister both indicated, our experience also tells us that issues of democracy, free trade and open markets are what very much define our country. These are the kinds of values we need to stress and engage with as we face aggression around the world. They are very powerful diplomatic tools. Indeed, when we look around the world, it is important that our diplomatic networks also extend the importance of trade as an enabler—trade empowers.
I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord German, when he spoke about the power of education being fundamental to how we go about ensuring that the world really is empowered. That is why our Prime Minister has repeatedly articulated his absolute commitment to 12 years of quality education for girls. But I accept the premise of what the noble Lord, Lord German, said: to educate people, you need teachers. As we found through the challenges in Afghanistan, a conflict can really put a country back in terms of its achievements in that respect. We need to invest more in education to ensure that every child has an opportunity to realise their ambition.
Isolationism, on the other hand, offers little in terms of economic security, health security or, indeed, cybersecurity. I agree totally with the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Coussins, in terms of how we need to invest more in languages. I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who is a constant advocate for the importance of investing in our Diplomatic Academy but also for the importance of learning languages. Her continued lobbying ensures that we as a Government retain a focus on these important issues.
I will come on to Ukraine in a moment, but let me touch on a few specific issues. My noble friend Lord Eccles talked about the Commonwealth, as did the noble Lord, Lord McDonald. While it does not perhaps figure in the Queen’s Speech with the strength that certain noble Lords said it did, it is a very proud part of my title, and I am looking forward to further strengthening the work of the 54 member states as we hand over the chair-in-office mantle to Rwanda. Indeed, the Rwandan Foreign Minister has been visiting London as he goes on to Geneva, and we are looking forward to being in Kigali. We will be looking to progress a number of priorities at CHOGM, including those on trade and investment, women and girls, climate and the environment, democracy, peace and security. I look forward to updating your Lordships’ House in this respect.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Cox, also talked about various situations around the world. First, with reference to central Asia, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, that I would very much value engaging with her directly. It was mentioned earlier about an ever-expanding portfolio, but I am, among other things, the Minister for Central Asia. I have seen quite directly with the situation in Afghanistan—not just in Ukraine—the real challenge on the ground that these countries have had to face. And yes, while some of them abstained in the votes at the General Assembly, I think we have to quantify and qualify that abstention. If you are one of those near-neighbouring countries from central Asia, facing Russia, with Russian minorities within your own borders, there is a genuine fear, and we have to ensure that we build those relationships. I look forward to engaging with the noble Baroness in that respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, also talked about the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, in terms of the territorial sovereignty, and the issue featured in others’ contributions. The UK position when it comes to Azerbaijan and Armenia is that there must be respect for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. We also support the ongoing efforts to bring Azerbaijan and Armenia together, in order to resolve all outstanding issues. We support the peace deal that has been reached, and the protection of cultural heritage. That is vital, and we work not just directly with those countries but also through agencies such as UNESCO, whose primary purpose is the protection of heritage sites.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, also raised the issue of the situation in Nigeria. My colleague Vicky Ford, the Minister for Africa, regularly discusses security with the Nigerian Government, and I am acutely aware of the issues through discussions I have had with the noble Baroness, and of how attacking particular religious minorities is part and parcel of those who seek to bring further discord and disruption to Nigeria.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Whitty, all talked, and rightly so, about climate change. Again, there is more to be said than in the time I have and I will write in terms of our focus, but for example I visited Egypt recently, and part of my engagement with Foreign Minister Shoukry, who is going to be the next COP president, is ensuring there is a continuity to what was achieved in Glasgow. My good friend and colleague, Minister Alok Sharma, was there as well to discuss these particular issues. It would be wrong for me not admit that the conflict in Ukraine has distracted, but it is important that we do not forget and lose focus on the importance of climate change, and the UK Government remain committed to our five-year pledge on the £11.6 billion of spending on international climate finance.
On the issues of soft power, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, reminded us of the importance of the BBC World Service. He also met earlier with Melinda Simmons, and the FCDO is providing the World Service with over £90 million per year, and an additional £1.44 million in 2022-23 to counter disinformation, specifically in Russia and Ukraine.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about Colombia and human rights concerns. I recently met the Colombian President at the UN. We remain concerned about the continuing worrying rates of murder and threats, of course, but I would highlight that, although Colombia remains an FCDO human rights priority country, we have seen progress on issues such as justice and accountability. This includes holding perpetrators of sexual violence to account, which continues to be an area of focus for us; indeed, not so long ago, I had a virtual visit to Colombia in which that was a focus for my area of engagement.
I will briefly turn to other areas. The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, talked about the situation in Kashmir and human rights in India more broadly. I assure him that, in any engagement I have with India and on my visits there, human rights issues are raised. On the human rights report itself, it is not necessary that every country where we may have human rights concerns should be featured in it; various criteria are applied on that.
The noble Lord also mentioned sanctions. I cannot speculate on that issue, but I remind him that we work closely with India, which, through its own constitutional protections, has at its heart the issue of protecting all communities. That is something on which we engage very constructively with India.
My noble friend Lady Warsi highlighted a particular case. I will of course follow up with her on it. In the time we have, perhaps we can engage on the issues she raised to ensure that, where we can make progress on particular issues, we look at how best to move that forward.
My noble friend Lord Dundee talked about Ukraine in the context of praising the work of the Council of Europe. Through the expulsion of Russia from the CoE, we have seen how other partners in Europe are standing together to ensure that a clear message is sent to Russia.
Turning quickly to Russia and Ukraine, I do not agree with the assessments of the noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Campbell-Savours, but many noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Ricketts, Lord Triesman and Lord Dannatt, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs—talked powerfully and passionately about the importance of our role in Ukraine. I am genuinely grateful for the strong support we have received from across the House for the Government’s approach.
Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others reminded us that it is also important to focus on what happens in this particular crisis not just through the humanitarian response but by building an economic response to the situation in Ukraine. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that we will work constructively and engage with your Lordships’ House on whatever the next steps are. The Government have already allocated more than £400 million, including £220 million in humanitarian support, and a further £1.3 billion for defence and military support. I am sure noble Lords would acknowledge the positive response we have had from President Zelensky. Like others, including my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, I am in close contact with the Foreign Minister as part of our relationship.
We are also working closely with the ICC. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, mentioned war crimes. We are working closely with Karim Khan and his team on both formal technical and financial support and support on the ground, linking to the Ukrainian Government directly.
The noble Lords, Lord Burnett, Lord Ricketts and Lord Dannatt, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friend Lord Cormack talked about NATO expansion. This is an ironic situation. I am sure that the Russians will reflect on the fact that one unintended consequence of their direct intervention has been to speed up the process. When you go to Finland, in particular, you see the vulnerability. I visited Estonia, where I saw directly the importance of our presence and the role of NATO, which has strengthened; we have seen real resilience being built. I agree with the assessment made so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Owen: we have seen that NATO is very much the bedrock of European security. It is important that the United Kingdom plays its part.
The whole issue of defence is very key, and I will move on that in a moment. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, talked about sanctions, and that has become a very effective tool.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, is reminding me that time is nearly up—
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Far be it from me to stop the noble Lord from taking his tablets.
It is important to remember that the sanctions work when we work with our partners. Many questions have been asked about how we are working in a co-ordinated fashion: we are doing so because we are working together with our key partners when it comes to sanctions policy as well.
I turn now to a couple of other situations that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, talked about in relation to Iran. We are very much aware of the situation and, while we back the deal, now it is really for Iran to ensure that it stands up to the obligations it has under the deal. Issues of trade relating to China were raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Anderson, among others. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, will know my strong views on issues of human rights and the situation in Xinjiang. I also assure him that we are looking at further issues around the supply chain to ensure that operating companies can be further tightened, beyond what has already been done, so that there is responsibility within the supply chain, when it comes to these issues, through existing trade deals and trade relationships. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, specifically mentioned Project Defend, looking at the Newport Wafer Fab. There are specific measures within that and, in the interests of time and not wanting to detain the House, I will write to the noble Lord in this respect.
My noble friend Lord Cormack rightly raised the security pact between the Solomon Islands and China. We have engaged directly with our Australian friends and, as we set out in the integrated review, the UK is committed to strategically focusing on the issues of the Indo-Pacific. Our recent deployment of a UK emergency medical team to the Solomon Islands demonstrated our continued commitment. It is an area we are watching very closely.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about defence expenditure, as did my noble friends Lady Davidson and Lord Lang, the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Houghton of Richmond, and the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, among others. They drew real focus to the issue of Army figures and our current resourcing. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, tried to get me into trouble by asking me who I do and do not agree with. Of course, I agree with all my bosses—that is important. At the same time, it is important to hear. I have listened to the strong sentiments that have been so clearly expressed. When you look around and see former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and senior figures from the military, as well as the likes of the noble Lords, Lord Ricketts and Lord McDonald, and others who are highlighting these important issues, it is important that the Government listen. A Government who do not listen need to also act. The next name I have written down is that of the noble Lord, Lord West, and, after listening to him, I had a whole series of statistics on figures and frigates in preparation to respond.
I assure noble Lords that, whether it is on land, by sea or in the air, we are looking very firmly at this. I pay great tribute to my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary who has been at the forefront, and I have seen his commitment to our defence capabilities directly. I have also worked very closely with him in the field, in the areas of both Afghanistan and Ukraine, together with James Heappey, and seen the importance of these issues first-hand. I assure my noble friends Lord Jopling, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord West, among others, that we are very much ensuring that we not only sustain our own 2% guidelines when it comes to NATO spending but that we continue to encourage our allies to do exactly the same. Collective security is a joint endeavour, and our partners need to be responsive to those particular issues.
I will write on the details of the various frigates that we are supporting and investing in. There are also the Type 45 destroyers—HMS “Dauntless” has recently completed its harbour integration trials—and the Type 26 programme. We have three of the Type 26 ships: HMS “Glasgow”, HMS “Cardiff” and HMS “Belfast” are under construction on the Clyde. I hope that gives at least a taster to the noble Lord, Lord West, among others, and shows that the Government are investing and looking at this. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lee, that submarines are not forgotten. Barrow, which he mentioned, will remain a proud hub of our submarine building programmes for years to come.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, talked of the F35 Lightning, which is the fifth-generation fighter aircraft that is providing our Armed Forces with enhanced combat air capabilities. To date, 27 of these F35s have been delivered and further tranches of delivery are to follow.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about the Ministry of Defence and the Procurement Bill. Delivering the Defence and Security Industrial Strategy, published in 2021, and learning from experience since 2014, means reforms are needed. We will continue to deliver and look at these issues to ensure value for money when it comes to defence.
The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, asked about Northern Ireland legacy investigations. I assure him that the Government are unstinting in our admiration for the role of our Armed Forces. I know that admiration is shared by all noble Lords. In ensuring that Northern Ireland’s future will be decided only by democracy and consent, the Government’s Bill seeks to fulfil the manifesto commitment we gave to address the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past by giving veterans the protections they deserve and focusing on information.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that our AI strategy will be published before the Summer Recess, so I am sure we will be able to update him appropriately.
I have run well over time, but I will briefly touch on trade and recognise the progress that has been made. We have now agreed trade deals with 70 countries, plus the EU. That accounts for about £808 billion of UK bilateral trade in 2021. The US free trade agreement is progressing well, as is the agreement with India; we are on stage four of our negotiations with India. I am sure that noble Lords followed the Prime Ministers of the two countries declaring that we hope to have that concluded by Diwali.
There were many contributions and many differing opinions on the Northern Ireland protocol. I particularly recognise the value of the support from my noble friend Lord Lilley, who articulated that the protocol was never intended to be set in stone. I assure my noble friend Lord Cormack that we are publishing the Government’s legal position. We are driven by the fact that the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement must be sustained. The noble Lords, Lord McCrae and Lord Morrow, both reminded us from a Northern Ireland perspective that we must ensure that the protocol works for the people of Northern Ireland. It needs to ensure that the peace that was reached through the Belfast agreement is sustained and strengthened.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that we are very conscious of our obligations when it comes to our standing in regard to international law. My noble friend Lord Hannan summed up very neatly when he said that the Government are seeking to act in the best interests of ensuring co-operation—and the tone we are using is one of co-operation. As I said yesterday, the door is not closed. We continue to engage. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is engaging extensively with our friends at the European Commission. Of course, a negotiated settlement would be the best option, but we must be true to our obligations as a sovereign power in Northern Ireland and ensure that we do not lose sight of our obligations to the people of Northern Ireland.
There are issues around farming industries that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked about, on which I will respond. The Horizon project was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord King, rightly raised the issue of food security, as did the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. My noble friend Lord Risby rightly talked of the wider impact of the Ukrainian crisis and the impact in north Africa. I visited Egypt recently; Egypt and Morocco have been highlighted. Some 400 million people were fed through Ukraine, the food basket of Europe and the world, and that no longer happens, so we need to focus on that.
On development, very briefly, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about our commitment to the Global Fund. The UK has invested £4.1 billion in the Global Fund to date, and we recently published our position papers on health systems strengthening and ending preventable deaths. We are currently reviewing the Global Fund’s investment case for the seventh replenishment and I will update him accordingly.
I am coming to my grand finale and my Whip is telling me, “Tariq, that’s enough”—this is where I ignore the Whip. In all seriousness, on international development, I hear the passion and the universal message to the Government to return to 0.7% in fulfilling our obligations to the people most in need. I am sure we will have further debates on the Government’s international development strategy, but I say to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that it matches the ambitions we stated in the integrated review.
On nutrition, about which I know the noble Lord, Lord Collins, feels very strongly, the UK pledged £1.5 billion between 2022 and 2030 and will continue to address the nutrition of mothers, babies and children.
I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to an extensive debate which reflected the immense expertise possessed by your Lordships’ House. This Government made a commitment last year to be more proactive and adaptable. My noble friend Lady Fall reminded us of the importance of reflecting to the world and reacting to it as it is today. Our diplomatic network, development experts, military, parliamentarians and diplomats are part and parcel of the picture of global Britain. We will be able to showcase many of these issues as we host the FoRB ministerial conference in July and the PSVI conference in November.
We are working in a changing global dynamic and an increasingly unstable world. Challenges have come thick and fast, whether Covid, the situation in and exit from Afghanistan, or Ukraine. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, our country—our United Kingdom—has always been a dynamic country and we have always been quick on our feet. It has been a country full of innovation and a place for free thinkers. The United Kingdom of 2022 remains an agile, energetic, assertive country that is prepared to stand up. With Ukraine, we have shown that when it comes to the crunch we stand up for our friends and partners and for democracy, free speech and liberty, and work together with our partners against tyrants, autocrats and dictators. We work for peace, we work for security and we work for prosperity. I thank noble Lords for their indulgence.